























































































































































































































































♦ 

A x?, * 

, n d* * 

■» pi <£+ ■* > 

^ ^ 0 » 0 VP 

lV *1^/+ ^v> V ♦*•«* C* 

^ <> «• a ^ j? 5 ) • y > > x~C 

* C5|K§) * r£» *cCCv§OA c£ * 

* 


^CV . ™ 

-0 O -/&* 

° ^ ^ 


J* j> 'Kyir-' • -CL*^ CX * 

^ * o » 0 ° A ^ 

, %> v 

i«\ ciV *, v. 


V\ 

?.* ^'V. \llilf; > yv 

,0 V \D *'?;** A 

,0^ 6 !rl % , .4^ 



<4 o 

°* ^ V^’V ^a 

^ V * * * •» o. .0 >'••'* -> V 

° ^ ^ * fSBifeS * a v * 

® ^ vv 

v ** v< 

& v ■’b. A <. '■'J’. i*" .6* \ 'V s ®*5’ A 

i* .v^'. V . <-° P^w- °o A < 

.earaw/>- W r-^M" "fet* ' 

N. w v ° - 0 -* vf> '> $• <£» '" W'llWX^v.'*' ° A' <P* - > y V- 

S> ' N v ^ w * t\ b-t* _ ^2//JyJp * r\ ■** * 

’ -* ^ / V*^V % *-•’ / *<►. 

c\ <y **V> *> v % A * o. c\ yy ,*v> ^ 


° • * ‘ A C B ^ 

. <P. r»’ o*a^ *Z~. 

* *P /* v) o __ ^ O 

^ ^o* :' is ^^&". p 

>« «5°^ 

V 

V r Y * ° 

► 


5 ° V* 




^ J * 


r ' ~ “ /► C.' 

A^ ♦kVA 0 ^ Si® • ^ A V y MA° 

„■ ^ oVJ|aF * a’ %, A %. -WMW* 

<A "O . X * . 0 ^ *A.s 4 A <. 'o,»* 

C. # °_HC^ <■“ O .A t ^>2 -, I 

* 3 *. - ^ ^FAWw a ^ A **r,{f.//??'. " 3 V 

% . ^///^ ^ ^ 

-o5 ^ 


^ ' 5 '^7*s s A 'o.** ^ A 

* ,V^ •*•'*<» 0 ^ & ° w ° ♦ ^O jA 

I*" o u'p- sL/r?*? •r ^ G u •Axatv^ o 

&**. •] 

^ * ip’/. * sriySHa o a o. ► * <o * ; 


I* *0 ^ w/ 

> > v^ *" Rv\ss>y ° .A vs> <^/y//i\\ 'y? > ^ ^ 

f° V -..»’ .A °i, *••'" a 0 'V ♦.,«• A 

LV ,*V'» "b- »'‘°- c- -0 , S M'» ^ ,'*o, 

!. . ^mUiv . ^ «, ._^R s . + > a A / 



°o 



!»• ^ o^ f 

^ /°« *.«R-* v 

-A °o, -A-’ ,o° ^ ' 

^c\ . 0 ^ , s * *^ V v „ » • o, 

'■*®' *” ^ a , ‘ f \ l $> < ^ / ,* A 

* rj» A^ , ‘rCCv«»/H, 0 ^n A * 

,: W • 

r * ^ •*- <v>~ ^ a^ °o 

4 A A, 'o.*- .g^ \d ♦TWf; a A -o. 

A> .t». # 

• 4 

0 A_> 

* tA 


f ,, °, ^-. 

A *‘i\€ Sl< ^„* T^i a? 5 ’ 

y 'mm\ - r 

• A-V * 


^'^£z9®Tw * A' o v ^^.Xr * w • ’s/3« 

o> A <* '«>.** \d 

’», X ^ 



<> 'o. * * G w, 

- QA o ° " 0 ■» ^O 

• - x^v - 

O > 

» A' ^ ^ ^ * 

• <1 ^ o o ^ * 

& f° v 

•a. 0 A:> > v 

x ^ ... 

^ ** v \ /% V| 

’♦ ^ -o^ A . 1 ^ ,o^ o 0 ”-. *b 

u> .A 4 J>’I////AA -» 

• Ot’ • 

* aP v:, 
v ^ ^ \ 




^o‘ A ^ 

' - N~ ^ . ‘V'/yy/'^P’ •<• a '^* ^'^M.WXN^* ' N > «- ‘-yy/ziude ' 

•• y v*^*’ / y.y y y 

v t Y *°- c\ A .’ *o. 

^ ^ •IaVaX ^ y ♦' 




y,* > . •.WV ^ • 

/ 

r .131^0- '^o* v o V 


V **N0»V A * v « A V 

°* ^•* A ... ^ *° • * -A -. °< 




* A O 

y •> -O'/ 5 '-Cj>. * 

^ ■» ,^- V *» 



* V”* ° 

* 'V A* ° 

-V 

A % ^V 1 -'* ^ 

’bv* :£ *’- '^o< ° 


• AA 

♦ V V- 



% V* \> ; -y -* 

aO * val> > v ** * °* o. 

P/u*o ^ <v. ^ 




° ^ 

* *v •<£■ ° 



* «$* A v 

AA V * 


• 

<*> *'?.^’** <G^ **^^T* % a <^ 

s^JlL^k «* vv- <T> ** 

flJ2l. ^ ^ 

A o. * * <0 ^ 

* o * ^i-if i* 0 ^ ■* - - 0 

,<y , > • • - , v v 

* ,Wv V a *V«V. 




• 


• yy 

* <v a* ° 


A O 

' * y> A> 

• ts 2>> * A V & * ■WW •> 

<y '°. a jy o A 

<£. o v - °* ® * *^o jA ,«■'*,, <£ 

„ A- C u •Vs!^!*- O .j* J’Ln**?.* v 



^ A” 
V 






♦ o N 0 0 < ^‘'''' , *A° , <J^ 4 'o*o 5 ^ °^. *•'■** 

• % V N A*o. Ox ~ nL% n> A - ^ 

" A ^ /Ate ^ ^ 



* ^ A v 

: v^v 


■. y% 

* 4 ^ a 




VO T~/w' ♦ 

* o> A *■ 

•- w .*■ 

\mw> y°V '. 

^ •» .<y & 

'o . A .(> c 




°o V ^ 


\pV 





s ?v° ^ 

* A x * l ^ 

*,-.•’ .0 ; "s'/o 0 

V- 

A s s .vi% ^ v 

• *p /ll> 

o %^v A * 

o A ,, 


*° ^ 

°C> ,0 ; * 

• o 0^ , 4 * * /• A>- 

' > A 

o ^ ^ 

y° ^ ^ \ A ^ v ^ <$? \ 

s 4 A <* ^o * A A % <:> .. s' A <^ '® • A <0 ^ 

. «• / » ^ q"^ 0 o N ° /» ^O t • 1 ' * •♦ ^0^ o 0 " 0 * ^ 

•a Vjbi^.% -v « 0 ••-^nt'. V 1 A*>a^.’. 




^*0' 


© o5 ^ 

.a ^ « ^^^ o_ *■ n 0 

%.*•*•' y .. v " ’ ■ y . .. 




.* y a 

.• 4 A 

C° ^ A 

' - ••'o 


0 






•#> '.'V 

« L 

^ ' 
/ « <5*. 

i /■ 

ysyj* -, ^ 

♦ Jgw/ 
K sfiZl // 



o * 

q. * * 

■ O 

#Vo ^ a^’ y 


--y O o ^ 


o v , s *y, ^ 



0 <& °« 
y / o. * 

v % .»• V a0 v y> 

. .& .’aVa* y y 




























































































































































































































































































































































OF THE 

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF 
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 


The Direct Primary 


Publication Office 
The Rumford Press Building 

CONCORD, N. H. 


Editorial Office 

39th Street and Woodland Avenue 

PHILADELPHIA 


Vol.'CVI MARCH, 1923 No. 195 






THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL 

AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 


Origin and Purpose. The Academy was organized December 14, 
1889, to provide a national forum for the discussion of political and social 
questions. The Academy does not take sides upon controverted questions, 
but seeks to secure and present reliable information to assist the public in 
forming an intelligent and accurate opinion. 

Publications. The Academy publishes annually six issues of THE 
ANNALS dealing with the most prominent current social and political 
problems. Each publication contains from twenty to twenty-five papers 
upon the same general subject. The larger number of the papers published 
are solicited by the Academy; they are serious discussions, not doctrinaire 
expressions of opinion. 

Meetings. The Academy holds scientific sessions each year during 
the winter months, and it also has an annual meeting extending over two 
full days and including six sessions. The papers of permanent value 
presented at the meetings are included in the Academy publications. 

Membership. The subscription price of THE ANNALS of the American 
Academy of Political and Social Science is $5.00 per year. Single copies 
are sold at $1.00 each. THE ANNALS are sent to all members of the 
Academy, $4.00 (or more) of the annual membership fee of $5.00 being 
for a subscription to the publication. Membership in the Academy may 
be secured by applying to the Secretary, 39th Street and Woodland Avenue, 
Philadelphia. The annual membership fee is $5.00 and the life member¬ 
ship fee $100. Members not only receive the regular publications of the 
Academy, but are invited to all the meetings. Members also have the 
privilege of applying to the Editorial Council for information upon current 
political and social questions. ^ 


Issued bi-monthly by the American Academy of Political and Social Science at Concord, 
New Hampshire. 

Editorial Office, 89th Street and Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. 


Entered as second-class matter. May 8th, 1918, at the post-office at Concord, New Hampshire, under the 

Act of August i4> t91t. 







THE DIRECT PRIMARY 


Volume CVI 


®Ije Unnals 

March, 1923 


Editor: CLYDE L. KING 
Absociatb Editor: J. H. WILLITS 
Assistant Editor: J. T. SALTER 

Editorial Council: C. H. CRENNAN, DAVID FRIDAY, A. A. GIESECKE, A. R. HATTON, 
AMOS S. HERSHEY, E. M. HOPKINS, S. S. HUEBNER, CARL KELSEY, J. P. LICH- 
TENBERGER, ROSWELL C. McCREA, E. M. PATTERSON, L. S. ROWE, 

HENRY SUZZALO, T. W. VAN METRE, F. D. WATSON 


Editor in Charge of this Volume 
J. T. SALTER 

Instructor in Political Science, University of Pennsylvania 



_ • f 

The American Academy of Political and Social Science 
39th Street and Woodland Avenue 
Philadelphia 
1923 




) 





Copyright, 1923, by 

The American Academy of Political and Social Science 

All rights reserved 


? c 


II 


v \ f' /A, i a 


c 






EUROPEAN AGENTS 

ENGLAND: P. S. King & Son, Ltd., 2 Great Smith Street, Westminster, London, S. W. 
FRANCE: L. Larose, Rue Soufflot, 22, Paris. 

GERMANY: Mayer & Muller, 2 Prinz Louis Ferdinandstrasse, Berlin, N. W. 

ITALY: Giornale Degli Economisti, via Monte Savello, Palazzo Orsini, Rome. 

SPAIN: E. Dossat, 9 Plaza de Santa Ana, Madrid. 



CONTENTS 


PART I—THE DIRECT PRIMARY PAGB 

NOMINATING SYSTEMS. 1 

Charles S. Merriara, Ph.D., LL.D. Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago 

DIRECT PRIMARIES. 11 

Charles Kettleborough, Ph.D., Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Indiana 

REMOVABLE OBSTACLES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY. 18 

H. W. Dodds, Secretary, National Municipal League 

WHY I BELIEVE IN THE DIRECT PRIMARY. 22 

George W. Norris, United States Senator from Nebraska 

DEFECTS IN THE DIRECT PRIMARY. 31 

Karl F. Geiser, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science in Oberlin College 
THE DIRECT PRIMARY AND PARTY RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN... . 40 


Arnold Bennet Hall, J.D., of the faculties of Political Science and Law of the University 
of Wisconsin 

OPINIONS OF PUBLIC MEN ON THE VALUE OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY.... 55 

William E. Hannan, Legislative Reference Librarian, New York State Library 

PART II—SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY 


REFORM OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING METHODS. 63 

P. Orman Ray, Ph.D., Professor Political Science, Northwestern University 

PARTY PLATFORMS IN STATE POLITICS. 72 

Ralph S. Boots, University of Nebraska 

NON-PARTISAN NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS. 83 

Robert Eugene Cushman, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota 

PRE-PRIMARY CONVENTIONS. 97 

Schuyler T. Wallace, Instructor in Political Science, Columbia University 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES. Its Spread, Princi¬ 
ples of Operation, Relation to Direct Primaries and General Results. 105 

C. S. Hoag, Secretary, Proportional Representation League 

PREVENTION OF MINORITY NOMINATIONS FOR STATE OFFICES IN THE 

DIRECT PRIMARY. Ill 

Benj. H. Williams, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania 

PART III—THE OPERATION OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN PARTICULAR 
STATES 

THE CALIFORNIA DIRECT PRIMARY. 116 


Victor J. West, Professor of Political Science, Stanford University 

THE DIRECT PRIMARY LAW IN MAINE AND HOW IT HAS WORKED. 128 

Orren Chalmer Hormell, Ph.D., Bowdoin College 

OPERATION OF THE STATE-WIDE DIRECT PRIMARY IN NEW YORK STATE 142 
Louise Overacker, M.A., Fellow in Political Science, The University of Chicago 


THE WORKINGS OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN IOWA. 148 

Frank E. Horack, Professor of Political Science, State University of Iowa, Iowa City 

THE OPERATIONS OF THE RICHARDS PRIMARY. 158 

Clarence A. Berdahl, Ph.D., Associate in Political Science, University of Illinois 

THE OPERATION OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN INDIANA. 172 

Frederic H. Guild, Indiana University 

PART IV 

DIGEST OF PRIMARY ELECTION LAWS. 181 

Charles Kettleborough, Ph.D., Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Indiana 

BOOK DEPARTMENT. 274 

REPORT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF 

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, YEAR ENDING DECEMBER, 31, 1922. ... 281 

INDEX. 284 


in 





























f " 



/ 


A 







» ; « * * i 


1r 
















: •; 






.X 
























. 


i if 


, 






i i ’ i 






Nominating Systems 

By Charles S. Merriam, Ph.D., LL.D. 

Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago 


O UR nominating systems have 
passed through many stages of 
development as various social, eco¬ 
nomic and political situations were 
encountered. The legislative and con¬ 
gressional caucus were evolved; devel¬ 
oped into the hybrid caucus; and 
later grew into the convention, under 
the pressure of Jacksonian Democracy. 
The originally shapeless convention 
gradually took form and order, but 
after the Civil War the new urban and 
industrial conditions forced a system of 
legal regulation of the delegate system. 
Later in many local communities the 
non-partisan primary, nomination by 
petition only, or proportional repre¬ 
sentation, supplanted the older meth¬ 
ods. The direct primary also sprang 
up shortly after the Civil War, later 
as a part of the insurgent or progressive 
movement, and materially altered the 
nominating system in almost all parts 
of the country. Now comes the 
challenge of direct nomination with a 
demand for the abandonment of the 
system on the one hand, and for 
modifications and further develop¬ 
ments on the other. 

The w T riter has been asked to review 
the present nominating system and 
cheerfully does so, expressing the hope, 
however, that his statements will be 
taken not as propaganda for a special 
system but as an effort toward a con¬ 
structive solution of a very vexed 
problem. We are groping our w T ay 
toward the adjustment of popular 
control, political and governmental 
leadership, and technical knowledge 
and ability; and we find the methods 
of party organization and control a 
highly important part of the process. 


Old Convention System 

The direct primary was established 
in the United States as a protest 
against the unrepresentative character 
of the old-time convention . 1 The 
abuses of the delegate system had 
produced widespread dissatisfaction 
and a general feeling that the nominat¬ 
ing conventions did not reasonably re¬ 
flect the will of the party. It was be¬ 
lieved that the conventions were in 
many cases controlled by political 
bosses, and further that these bosses 
were either controlled by or closely 
allied with greedy and selfish indus¬ 
trial interests. It was believed that 
the convention system was admirably 
adapted to management by the “in¬ 
visible government” of the industrial- 
political magnates. Numerous in¬ 
stances in which the public will was 
defied, cases of bribery and corruption 
of delegates, prolonged deadlocks, bit¬ 
ter factional struggles, bargaining and 
trading of offices for the support of 
delegates;—all contributed to the gen¬ 
eral conclusion that the convention 
was too remote from the party, and 
that its results did not fairly represent 
the judgment of the rank and file of 
the party. 

Among the specific evils arising 
under the old convention system were: 

1. The limitation of the voter’s choice to 
a set of delegates committed to one candi¬ 
date, but uninstructed for others. In such 
cases the candidate “traded” his delega- 

1 The history of this movement is traced in my 
Primary Elections (1909). See also my Ameri¬ 
can Party System, Ch. 9 (1922); Recent Tend¬ 
encies in Primary Elections in National 
Municipal Review, Feb., 1921. 


2 


1 


2 


The Annals of the American Academy 


tion for votes of delegations controlled by 
other candidates. 

2. The frequent appearance of the 
dummy local candidate who held the local 
delegation solely for trading purposes. 

3. Delegations were seated at times by 
a process either of outright fraud or of 
indefensible trickery. From time to time 
large blocks of delegates were ousted from 
the positions to which they had been 
clearly elected. 

At the Illinois Republican Convention 
held in April, 1922, the seats of practically 
one-half of the delegates were contested, 
and the decision rested in the hands of the 
State Central Committee. The same situa¬ 
tion has happened repeatedly in the coun¬ 
ties and states operating under the delegate 
system, and in the national convention 
this situation is notorious. It led to the 
control of the Republican National Con¬ 
vention in 1912 by the Taft forces in the 
face of the clearly expressed will of the 
people indicating their desire for the 
nomination of Theodore Roosevelt. 

4. Frequent objection was made to the 
qualifications of the delegates appearing in 
the conventions, many of whom were 
deemed to be unfitted for the responsible 
tasks devolving upon them. 

5. The frequent purchase and sale of 
delegates to conventions; disorder and 
tumult in conventions; the deliberate be¬ 
trayal of trust by elected delegates were 
not infrequent occurrences. 

By 1910 the direct primary was 
supported by party leaders including 
Roosevelt, Wilson, Hughes, LaFollette 
and Johnson, and had been widely 
adopted throughout the United States. 
It so happened, however, that just as 
the direct primary law was placed upon 
the statute books, the Progressive 
Party was formed, and many of the 
very persons who had championed the 
law were unable to make use of it. By 
1916, many of the Progressives had 
returned to the old political parties, 
but in 1917 the war broke out and 
party divisions were minimized. A 
general wave of reaction sweeping over 


the country in recent years has tended 
to make the successful use of the sys¬ 
tem more difficult than in normal 
times. 

Objections to Direct Nominating 

System 

It is important now to examine the 
chief lines of objection that have been 
offered to the direct nominating sys¬ 
tem. It is often charged that the ex¬ 
pense of the direct primary is excessive 
and so great as to exclude worthy 
candidates and favor undesirable types. 
It may be observed first, that some 
confusion has been caused by attribut¬ 
ing the expense of public regulation of 
primaries to the direct system. If the 
primary is to be effectively supervised 
by the state, whether it is held for the 
purpose of making direct nominations 
or of selecting delegates to conventions, 
the public expense will be about the 
same in either case. The rental of 
polling places, payment of election 
officials, the printing of ballots, the 
canvass of voters, are as expensive in 
one system as in the other. If all direct 
primary laws were repealed, and the 
regulated delegate system retained, 
the public expense would not be 
materially reduced. 

Furthermore, as Governor Hughes 
has pointed out, and as practical ex¬ 
perience shows, if there is a real con¬ 
test for nomination, the expense to the 
candidates who are campaigning will 
be about as great under the delegate 
system as under the direct primary 
system. 2 For example, the notable 
contest in Illinois in 1904 for the 
Republican nomination, in which 
Deneen, Lowden, Yates, Sherman and 
others participated, and which took on 
the proportions of a desperate, state¬ 
wide struggle for delegates, was as 
expensive as any direct primary. If 
there is no contest, there will be no 

2 National Municipal Review, X, 23 (1920). 


Nominating Systems 


3 


expense, whether the primary is direct 
or indirect. If there is a contest, the 
expenditures will not vary greatly 
under the different systems. 

There is much insincerity in the 
popular discussion of campaign funds, 
but there is little evidence to indicate, 
and none adequate to demonstrate 
that the use of wealth in direct pri¬ 
maries is more effective than in the 
election of delegates and the control of 
conventions. The real question is not 
whether the nominal campaign ex¬ 
penditures are larger in one system 
than the other, but whether pluto¬ 
cratic tendencies control more easily 
under one system than another. On 
the whole, the elaborate mechanism of 
delegates and conventions is more 
easily managed by special interests 
than is the primary. It cannot be 
forgotten that the conventions have 
often been controlled by small groups 
of men, representing wealth and priv¬ 
ilege, who have bought and sold dele¬ 
gates like so many cattle, either by 
direct cash payments or by indirect but 
material inducements. It is true that 
voters may be bought and sold in direct 
primaries, and sometimes are, but they 
may also be bought and sold in elect¬ 
ing delegates; and in addition to that 
the delegates may be bought and sold. 

In viewing campaign expenditures, 
it is important to consider the demo¬ 
cratic financing of campaign funds, 
public aid to the conduct of campaign¬ 
ing, and to acquire a thorough under¬ 
standing of the essential and non- 
essential expenses in campaigning. 
Our communities might save some 
money by abolishing the direct pri¬ 
mary system, but they might lose more. 
We might also save in the short run by 
abolishing all types of elections, but we 
do not expect to economize in that 
. fashion. A ten-year holiday in the 
holding of direct primaries would be a 
dubious saving. There is no room in 


any community for wasteful expendi¬ 
ture of funds, but outlays for demo¬ 
cratic operation of the government are 
on the whole a sound investment 
rather than a burdensome obligation. 

Voting Differences 

The direct primary is sometimes 
condemned because a heavier vote is 
not cast in certain primaries. In 
many instances the primary vote is 
unquestionably small,, although on the 
whole far exceeding that under the 
delegate plan. But to condemn the di¬ 
rect primary vote because all of the 
party voters do not participate in it, is 
like condemning universal suffrage be¬ 
cause all who are eligible do not vote. 
In 1920 some 54 per cent of the adult 
citizens of the United States did not 
exercise the suffrage in a contest over 
the most important elective office in 
the world—the choice of the President 
of the United States. Hence 50 per 
cent of the party vote might be con¬ 
sidered a fair proportion of the party 
electorate. And such a vote, or a 
larger percentage, is usually polled in 
an important election. In fact, if we 
consider that many who vote the party 
ticket do not reckon themselves as 
partisans, and will not openly affiliate 
with any party, the percentage of 
those voting to the available party vote 
is materially greater. The frequent 
failure of the voter to exercise his hard- 
won franchise is one of the surprises 
and disappointments of modern de¬ 
mocracy upon which all observers 
have gravely commented, but in view 
of the newness of the vote and the 
recent rise of universal and compulsory 
education, it need occasion no surprise. 
The tendency is for the vote to increase 
steadily as men and women become 
accustomed to the common burdens of 
their common life, assumed with the 
adoption of self-governing forms of 
political organization. 


4 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Furthermore, the significance of the 
vote under the direct primary varies 
in different sections of the country or of 
the state. About half of the states are 
one-party states where the primary is 
of the very greatest importance, for 
here the election is practically decided. 
This list includes Alabama, Arkansas, 
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Loui¬ 
siana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, New Hampshire, Okla¬ 
homa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, 
Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, and 
comprises more than half of the popu¬ 
lation of the United States. Many 
other states are preponderatingly Re¬ 
publican or Democratic. Of the 3,000 
counties in the United States, it is safe 
to say that roughly half of them are 
one-party counties. Legislators, gov¬ 
ernors and United States senators in 
many parts of the country are prac¬ 
tically chosen in party primaries. In 
these instances, and they are many, 
the primary of the majority party is of 
the utmost consequence, for whatever 
its outcome, it is not likely to be over¬ 
thrown in the subsequent election. In 
such cases the majority primary often 
calls out a very large vote while that of 
the minor party is of less consequence 
and perhaps slimly attended. 

Of 67 counties in Pennsylvania, 
there are three that have been uni¬ 
formly Republican during the last 
eleven elections—namely, Delaware, 
Lancaster and Philadelphia. In addi¬ 
tion to these, there are eleven others 
that have been Republican in every 
year except 1912. In addition to these, 
there are sixteen others that have been 
Republican ten out of eleven times. 
Of Democratic counties, there is one 
that has been unbrokenly partisan 
since 1859—namely, Columbia County. 
There are four others that have been 
Democratic ten times in eleven elec¬ 
tions. The population of Pennsyl¬ 


vania in 1920 was 8,720,017. The 
population represented in the 35 coun¬ 
ties which are almost invariably either 
Republican or Democratic was, in 
1920, approximately 6,500,000. In 
other words, approximately two-thirds 
of the primary nominations in Pennsyl¬ 
vania were equivalent to an election. 
The style of nominating system in 
these counties and in this population 
is therefore a matter of fundamental 
interest, since the primary choices con¬ 
stitute the most significant agency the 
electorate possesses in the way of pop¬ 
ular control. 

In Indiana about half the counties 
are almost fixed in their party affilia¬ 
tions. In Illinois more than half are 
solely Republican or Democratic. In 
New York the bulk of the up-state 
counties are one-party counties. Fur¬ 
ther detailed analyses of counties show 
similar results. 

The direct primary is of special im¬ 
portance to women voters for a very 
definite reason. In conventions, the 
number of women delegates is very 
small, perhaps five or ten per cent of 
the total number. In the primaries, 
however, the percentage of woman’s 
vote is much higher—perhaps 40 per 
cent of the total vote. It will be some 
time before women are as fully repre¬ 
sented in legislatures or conventions as 
are men. For the present, their in¬ 
fluence may be much more effectively 
exerted under the direct primary sys¬ 
tem than under the delegate system. 
Curiously enough, it is proposed that 
just as women are given the right to 
vote, the system under which they 
might most effectively act shall be 
changed to one under which their 
influence will be less powerful. It is 
not surprising that alert leaders of 
women are found aligned against the 
repeal of the direct primary laws in the 
states. 



Nominating Systems 


5 


The Direct Primary and Party 
Leadership 

It is contended that the practical 
operation of the direct primary has 
been disappointing. Here we may 
schedule, however, two classes of dis¬ 
appointments. It may be said that 
the direct primary is disappointing in 
. that the boss and the machine have 
not been overthrown; or it may be 
said that the direct primary is disap¬ 
pointing in that it makes responsible 
party leadership difficult or impossible. 
But of course these two disappoint¬ 
ments cannot be simultaneous. If the 
boss and the machine continue to con¬ 
trol as before, then it cannot be con¬ 
tended that there is any less leadership 
than there was before. If the same 
persons control the direct primary 
who controlled the convention, then 
these same persons must be in the same 
position of leadership in both cases. 
And it is interesting to observe that, 
generally speaking, although by no 
means in all cases, those who are most 
vigorously opposing the direct pri¬ 
mary on the ground that it makes im¬ 
possible concentrated leadership, are 
also found in opposition to measures 
designed to alter the structure of state 
or county government in such manner 
as to insure really responsible and 
effective leadership. 

The significance and value of party 
leadership must not be ignored, but 
the lack of it can by no means be at¬ 
tributed to the direct primary system. 
After one hundred years of operation 
under the convention system, we may 
ask how well organized was the party 
leadership in the average state? How 
definitely and consistently established 
was it in actual practice? Was party 
leadership in the state found in the 
governor or in the half dozen elective 
officers associated with him? Or was 
it found in the House of Representa¬ 
tives? Or was it found in the state 


central committee? Or was it found 
in the numerous county leaders scat¬ 
tered throughout the state, whose 
number often runs into the hundreds? 
Or was it found in the congressmen of 
the state; or much more probably was 
party leadership found in the United 
States senator? Or was it perhaps to 
be discovered in some political boss 
who was neither governor nor senator? 

It is entirely evident that the polit¬ 
ical party in the states and that the 
state government itself is now and has 
been for many years badly organized 
on the side of responsible public leader¬ 
ship, and is in woeful need of reha¬ 
bilitation in order to keep pace with the 
progressive movement of organization 
elsewhere. As an effective organiza¬ 
tion for the expression of political 
opinion, the party is hard-pressed by 
many other agencies, whose efforts are 
potent in the making and enforcing of 
law, and are sharply challenging party 
prestige. But this situation was not 
caused by the direct primary, nor is it 
easy to see how the direct primary 
interferes with any legitimate function 
of party leadership. 

When it is said that the direct pri¬ 
mary stands in the way of more ade¬ 
quate leadership, it is pertinent to ask 
just what is meant by such leadership, 
and what stands in the way of develop¬ 
ing party leadership at the present 
time either by party rule or custom? 
Evidently the direct primary did not 
prevent the leadership of Cummins in 
Iowa, or Lowden in Illinois, or John¬ 
ston in California, or Wilson in New 
Jersey, or LaFollette in Wisconsin, or 
McKelvie in Nebraska, or Cox in Ohio, 
within the limits set by the form of the 
state government. My observation is 
that the prevalence of spoils politics, 
the lack of state issues, the form of the 
state government stand in the way of 
leadership, rather than the way in 
which the nominations are made. 


6 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Advantages 

The direct primary cannot guarantee 
the uniform choice of competent men 
any more than the elective system 
itself can ensure such selections. It 
opens an easier avenue of approach, 
but cannot carry us through to the 
goal. The primary will not automat¬ 
ically overthrow the boss or the 
machine, but it provides a way of 
approving or rejecting selections, or of 
introducing new ones. The rank and 
file of the voters unquestionably act 
more readily and effectively through 
the direct nominating system, and the 
effectiveness of popular control is 
thereby increased. 

The selection of Pinchot in Pennsyl¬ 
vania, of Brookhart in Iowa, of Howell 
in Nebraska, of Beveridge in Indiana, 
are conspicuous illustrations of the 
effectiveness of the direct nominating 
system in enabling the sentiment of the 
voters to find expression in opposition 
to the party machine. In none of 
these cases is it probable that the 
successful candidate would have been 
victorious under the delegate system. 
The margin that spelled success came 
from groups of voters who would not 
have elected delegates, but who gave 
votes enough to Beveridge or Pinchot 
to turn the scale. 3 If the party organ¬ 
ization fairly represents party senti¬ 
ment, it will win whether the nomina¬ 
tions are made directly or indirectly; 
but in case of serious conflict, the 
direct vote seems to give a better 
opportunity for popular success than 
the delegate method. 

Mr. Secretary Hughes says of the 
direct primary system, summarizing 
its advantages: 

(1) It places a weapon in the hands of 
the party which they can use with effect in 

3 The Direct Primary in Two States (Indiana 
and Iowa) in National Municipal Review, 
Sept., 1922; Gifford Pinchot and the Direct 
Primary, Ibid., Oct., 1922. 


case of need. They are no longer helpless. 
This fact puts party leaders on their best 
behavior. It is a safeguard to the astute 
and unselfish leader who is endeavoring to 
maintain good standards in line with sound 
public sentiment. It favors a disposition 
not to create situations which are likely to 
challenge and test. 

(2) The fact of this control gives to the 
voters a consciousness of power and respon¬ 
sibility. If things do not go right, they 
know that the trouble lies w T ith them. The 
importance of this should not be over¬ 
looked in any discussion of the apathy of 
the electorate. 

The return to the convention system 
would not help the political party. On 
the contrary, it would probably injure 
the party by causing still further loss 
of public confidence in its organization 
and methods. The parties have al¬ 
ready suffered heavily in public confi¬ 
dence and can ill afford additional 
losses. Wise and far-seeing leaders 
would move forward rather than back¬ 
ward. They would endeavor to at¬ 
tract public interest and support by 
improvements in methods of transact¬ 
ing party affairs. Men and women are 
beginning to discover that they can 
influence governmental action without 
the agency of parties. The associa¬ 
tions of commerce, the labor unions, 
the farmers’ organizations, vocational 
and professional groups of all kinds, 
are tending to pass the party by. 
Party managers might well attempt to 
secure the sympathy and interest of 
these voters instead of closing the door 
of party activity to them, and making 
their effective participation in party 
counsels still more difficult. 

Suggestions for Political Advances 

The direct primary is a step in the 
evolution of the electoral system, just 
as the convention was an evolution 
from the legislative or congressional 
caucus. But there is still room for 


Nominating Systems 


7 


political advances. These, it seems to 
me, may follow three lines: 

1. Non-partisan ballot for local 

officials and judges. 

2. The short ballot. 

3. The development of party lead¬ 

ership through the party 
conference. 

1. Non-Partisan Ballot 

The direct primary has not been 
demanded by municipal representa¬ 
tives, but the system of nomination by 
petition, or some form of double elec¬ 
tion system, or some type of prefer¬ 
ential voting. Local elections do not 
follow national party lines closely, and 
the non-party ballot is more effective. 
The change to this system is being 
rapidly made in our cities, although 
much less developed in counties and 
other local agencies of government. 
National party influences and even 
party domination are not automatically 
excluded by these laws, but broadly 
speaking their significance is mini¬ 
mized and local issues and divisions 
are given wider scope for consideration. 
No one supposes, however, that the 
mere change in form of ballot or of 
nominating mechanism will eliminate 
national party influences from the 
domain of local politics. 

2. The Short Ballot 

In a discussion of nominating meth¬ 
ods in 1909, I expressed the belief that 
neither the direct primary nor the 
convention system would work well in 
situations where a large number of 
minor administrative offices were elec¬ 
tive. I still believe that we will not 
make progress in the better nomina¬ 
tion of coroners and surveyors and 
county clerks and state auditors under 
any system that the combined ingenu¬ 
ity of the elder and junior statesmen 
together may devise. The main road 
is the short ballot with what it involves 


in the way of governmental direction. 

In state and county governments 
with which we are now concerned, 
there is manifest a slow but strong 
tendency toward fundamental reorgan¬ 
ization, somewhat resembling that 
which has been seen in the more pro¬ 
gressive city governments during the 
last generation. Vigorous and effective 
state and local governments are needed 
to offset the centralizing tendencies of 
the Federal government and are de¬ 
sired even by the most ardent nation¬ 
alists. A more modern organization 
of these governments would do much 
to clear up the difficulties surrounding 
the nominating system, and might 
change the whole character of the 
problem, as has happened in cities 
where non-partisan elections and pro¬ 
portional representation are now the 
chief centers of electoral interest. If 
counties were to adopt a commission 
or council-manager plan, how would 
nominations be made? Or if, as some 
day may happen, a state adopts a 
simple form of government, such as the 
council-manager, or one in which ex¬ 
ecutive responsibility is more strongly 
organized, how then will nominations 
be made? 

The short ballot will tend to con¬ 
centrate power and responsibility, and 
to focus attention upon the significant 
offices to be filled. If only the gover¬ 
nor and members of the legislature, 
together . with one or two county 
officials were chosen at one time, it 
would be far easier for the voters to 
concentrate their attention upon these 
key officials and to exercise their pow¬ 
ers of discrimination more effectively 
than at present. With the short 
ballot, the task of the primary will be 
made much lighter, while the degree 
of popular control will tend to be 
greater. 

Precisely here it must be recognized 
that with the development of greater 


8 


The Annals of the American Academy 


power in fewer officials, it will be all 
the more necessary to exercise effective 
popular control over them. The 
larger authority conferred upon offi¬ 
cials through the process of consolida¬ 
tion and through the gradually in¬ 
creasing authority exercised by the 
government over social and industrial 
affairs, will be likely to require a bal¬ 
ance in more direct control. The 
counterpart to the short ballot may be 
the direct primary. 

But the short ballot is no more a pan¬ 
acea than is the direct primary, and 
we delude ourselves if we assume that 
the mechanical device of shortening 
the list of candidates will of itself cure 
all the ills the body-politic is heir to. 
Government is not more a matter of 
mechanisms than it is of values and 
attitudes, of intelligent discrimination, 
of sound sense and practical judgment 
on the part of the community. The 
fundamental attitudes of the people go 
deeper down than either the direct or 
the indirect primary, important as 
these are. We shall be drawn aside 
from the main purpose and needs of 
our time unless we recognize the vital 
importance of technical administration, 
applying the best results of intelligence 
and science to common affairs, unless 
we recognize the fundamental need of 
the broadest possible social and civic 
training, unless we recognize the signifi¬ 
cance of the spirit of justice which the 
state must strive to realize in the lives 
of men and women. 

It is important to consider other 
possibilities that may arise in the 
course of governmental development. 
It may be that in the reorganization of 
county and state government propor¬ 
tional or preferential representation 
will play a larger role than in the past. 
If this proves to be the case, the 
methods of nomination would be 
materially affected, as is now seen in 
cities using proportional representation. 


Here again, of course, the question 
may arise as to how the primary or 
original selection of candidates will be 
made. 

3. Party Conference 

It is not only possible but desirable 
to improve the organization of party 
leadership. There is nothing to prevent 
the holding of informal party con¬ 
ferences or conventions now, and in 
fact much might be accomplished by 
them in the w^ay of developing party 
leadership. On another occasion I 
suggested the possibility of the forma¬ 
tion of a national conference, meeting 
annually. 4 The same sort of a con¬ 
ference might be held on a state-wide 
scale, if desired. Such a conference 
might include the state governor, or 
last candidate of the minority party 
and their primary or convention oppo¬ 
nents ; state officials elected at large, or 
minority candidates; members of the 
state central committee or executive 
committee if this is deemed too large; 
party members of the state legislature 
and minority candidates; representa¬ 
tive party members appointed by the 
governor, the state central commit¬ 
tee, and various party leagues, clubs, 
societies—say a total of 100. This 
would make a total of perhaps 200 to 
300 members. 

Such a body might meet for the pur¬ 
pose of considering and recommending 
candidates for office, subject to ap¬ 
proval in a subsequent primary. In 
fact a conference might do much more 
than that. It might consider questions 
of party policy, listen to party speak¬ 
ers, hear reports of party committees 
on matters of party importance, 
consider problems of party manage¬ 
ment. Its members, representing dif¬ 
ferent sections and elements of the 
state, might consult and confer on a 
wide variety of party problems. Al- 

4 See my American Party System, 298. 


Nominating Systems 


9 


most every other social grouping in a 
state, whether political, religious, com¬ 
mercial, agricultural, industrial, edu¬ 
cational, holds such sessions with great 
pleasure and profit to its members. 
What association is there in the state 
that does not hold such periodical 
conferences of its leaders? 

And why are they not held within 
the party? And why does even the 
suggestion of such a party conference 
seem a little, shall w r e say, impractical? 
Certainly there is nothing in the law to 
prevent them. In some cases they are 
held, but often privately and not in the 
open air of publicity, as Senator Platt’s 
Sunday School, or Mr. Lundin’s Heart- 
to-Heart talks. 

One difficulty is that parties do not 
often stand for definite issues in state 
elections; indeed they seldom do. 
Again, considerations of patronage are 
often regarded by party managers as 
more important than those of policy, 
and conferences might tend to empha¬ 
size the latter. The party organiza¬ 
tion does not always care to encourage 
real leadership in contrast to job- 
brokerage and log-rolling. A local 
boss having discontinued a very flour¬ 
ishing ward club where issues were 
wont to be discussed, said, when asked 

why: “Because I have too d-d many 

statesmen on my hands now.” Nor 
can the mass of the party voters escape 
responsibility for their frequent lack of 
continuing and persistent interest in 
party affairs, and lack of effective 
cohesion in crises. 

Responsible leadership in the party 
is of the very greatest importance, but 
it is necessary to study with care the 
nature and function of the party, in 
order to see just what leadership 
develops or is required in state situa¬ 
tions. Broadly speaking, the party 
leadership is national rather than 
state, and even in the national field 
the party does not do as much leading 


as is sometimes supposed. But it is 
impossible to enter into this larger 
field on this occasion . 5 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it appears to me that 
the Old Guard is now, as it was orig¬ 
inally, against the direct nominating 
system, and would gladly return to the 
old delegate plan, which they con¬ 
trolled more readily. The mass of 
voters, however, while often disap¬ 
pointed in the results achieved under 
the new system and sometimes bored 
by the multiplicity of elections and 
candidates, are not ready to abandon 
the direct primary as an instrument of 
control, and are not likely to do so if 
given the opportunity to express them¬ 
selves directly in a referendum vote. 
The memory of the old conventions 
fades with time, but a little reflection 
recalls vividly the lurid pictures of 
misrepresentation and unblushing boss- 
control under it and gives us pause 
when we consider the return to the 
ancien regime. Many voters will con¬ 
clude that instead of going back to the 
earlier delegate system, they will 
endeavor to make more effective use 
of the primary system, and go forward 
to further improvements. 

There is likely to be much experi¬ 
menting with various forms of pre-pri¬ 
mary designation by party committees 
or conventions, and perhaps some 
form of party conference may be 
developed in the course of the process 
of trial and error. It is not unlikely 
that the party organization and process 
will be subjected to as severe analysis 
and extensive reorganization as are 
other forms of social and industrial 
groupings in our day. The existing 
party system does not hold by divine 

6 See my article on Nominating of Presidential 
Candidates in Journal American Bar Association 

(Feb., 1921). 



10 


The Annals of the American Academy 


right, but is subject to challenge, test 
and improvement, as are other human 
institutions. The growing responsibili¬ 
ties of government are placing increas¬ 
ing burdens upon the party and with 
greater complexity of social and indus¬ 
trial conditions it may be presumed 
that the effectiveness of the party will 
be sharply scrutinized and its methods 
materially modified. 

In the end it will be found that the 
dissatisfaction with the delegate sys¬ 
tem and with the direct primary is a 
symptom of troubles that go deeper 
down than any method of nomination. 
The frequent lack of a real basis of 
party unity must be considered. Party 
and governmental organization adapted 
to democratic responsibility and effi¬ 
ciency are involved; social and indus¬ 


trial maladjustments are related; our 
political mores , the level of popular 
interest and intelligence, human capac¬ 
ity for social organization, are inter¬ 
twined in the fabric of the electoral 
issue. Light rather than heat is needed 
in the present stage of our party devel¬ 
opment, and the forward look of con¬ 
structive intelligence striving to find 
the better way in our advance toward 
genuine democratic association and 
organization. 6 

6 On a previous occasion the writer suggested 
and again urges the great importance of a 
thoroughgoing, objective study of nominating 
systems in the United States. This would re¬ 
quire the collaboration of a number of persons 
and the expenditure of considerable amounts 
for detailed investigation of specific situations, 
but it would prove the necessary basis for a 
constructive future policy or alternative policies. 


Direct Primaries 

By Charles Kettleborough, Ph.D. 1 
Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Ind. 


A S an agency for the nomination of 
candidates for elective offices, the 
direct primary has been adopted and is 
now in use in 45 states. Connecticut, 
New Mexico and Rhode Island are the 
only states which nominate candidates 
exclusively by other methods. More¬ 
over, in most states the party machin¬ 
ery as it now exists is created and 
regulated by provisions which have 
been incorporated in the direct primary 
laws. The direct primary laws vary in 
their complexity and wealth of detail 
from those which have virtually 
adopted and legalized existing party 
methods of making nominations to the 
law of South Dakota, which is con¬ 
spicuously detailed in its provisions. 
In its ideal form, all candidates who 
obtain office by election are nomi¬ 
nated at the primary, but there are few, 
if any states in which the primary is as 
inclusive as that. Such tendency in 
the evolution of the primary as may be 
observed by an inspection of the laws, 
seems to be in the direction of restrict¬ 
ing the primary to the nomination of 
local candidates, but even this tend¬ 
ency is not marked. 

The various types of primaries now 
in use fall rather logically into two 
classes: (1) The mandatory primary 
and (2) the optional or permissive pri¬ 
mary, with which latter may be in¬ 
cluded the so-called preferential pri¬ 
mary. By the terms of the mandatory 
primary, all, or certain designated 
candidates for elective offices must be 
nominated by a primary. By the 
terms of the optional or permissive pri¬ 
mary, all, or certain designated candi¬ 
dates for elective offices may be nomi- 
1 See Digest of Primary Election Laws, p. 181. 


nated by a primary, the determination 
usually being vested in the governing 
authority of the party of the jurisdic¬ 
tion in which the primary is to be held. 
The laws in either case are substantially 
identical, but in the optional primary 
states, the law must be invoked, while 
in the mandatory states it operates 
under its own power. 

Mandatory Primaries 

There are 39 states which have man¬ 
datory primary laws and in which pri¬ 
mary elections are required to be held 
every alternate year for the nomination 
of candidates for public office. The 
mandatory primary states include Ari¬ 
zona, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massa¬ 
chusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis¬ 
sissippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
New York, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South 
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Ver¬ 
mont, Washington, West Virginia, 
Wisconsin and Wyoming. 

Optional Primaries 

There are 6 states which have the 
optional primary plan, by virtue of 
which the governing authority of the 
party in any jurisdiction may invoke 
the primary prior to any general elec¬ 
tion. The optional primary states 
include Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, 
Georgia, Kentucky and Virginia. In 
addition to these states, however, the 
optional primary plan may be used in 
the mandatory primary states under 


11 


n 


The Annals of the American Academy 


certain circumstances and upon the 
happening of certain contingencies. 
In several of the mandatory states, 
vacancies which happen between the 
regular primary and the general elec¬ 
tion may, in the discretion of the party 
committee, be filled by a nomination 
made at a special primary. In Ala¬ 
bama and Arkansas, the use of the pri¬ 
mary to fill such vacancies is optional. 
In Michigan, the question of nominat¬ 
ing candidates by the primary in cities 
of less than 70,000 may be submitted or 
re-submitted to the voters at any bien¬ 
nial primary election, on petition of 20 
per cent of the voters; villages and 
townships, under the general law, nomi¬ 
nate candidates at a caucus, but on 
petition of 10 per cent of the voters of 
any village, the question of nominating 
village officers by means of the primary 
may be submitted to the voters, and 
if approved by a majority thereof, 
candidates are thereafter nominated 
at a caucus in which ballots are used as 
in a primary. Any village adopting 
the primary-caucus system may at any 
time revert to the system provided by 
the general law. In townships, the 
primary-caucus plan may be adopted 
by the township board on its own 
initiative, or on petition of 25 per cent 
of the voters the adoption of the plan 
is obligatory. In Minnesota, in cities 
of the third class operating under a 
home rule charter, elective officers may 
be nominated at the primary on the 
adoption of a suitable resolution by 
the council. In North Carolina, county 
election boards may hold primaries for 
the selection of candidates for township 
and precinct officers. The Ohio pri¬ 
mary law does not apply to township 
officers or officers of municipalities of 
less than 2,000 population, but the 
voters of such jurisdictions, by petition 
signed by a majority thereof, may 
establish the primary therein. Mas¬ 
ters, magistrates and supervisors of 


registration in South Carolina are not 
nominated at the primary, but the 
respective county committees are au¬ 
thorized to order a primary for such 
officers. In West Virginia, the pri¬ 
mary is applicable to municipalities, 
but any city or borough having a popu¬ 
lation of less than 30,000 may adopt 
other methods of nomination in lieu of 
a primary. In Florida, the primary 
is optional in all cities. In Massa¬ 
chusetts, the question of adopting, con¬ 
tinuing or discontinuing the primary 
in municipalities is submitted at every 
city and town election. Except as 
otherwise specified, the governing au¬ 
thority of the party in the jurisdiction 
affected decides whether a party pri¬ 
mary shall be held. The North Caro¬ 
lina primary law does not apply to 39 
counties as to county officers and mem¬ 
bers of the lower house of the legisla¬ 
ture, but on petition of one-fifth of the 
voters, the question of holding pri¬ 
maries therein may be submitted to 
the voters and if a majority vote fa¬ 
vorably, the primary is thereafter 
operative. 

Dates of Primaries 

The dates of the primaries at which 
candidates are nominated for the gen¬ 
eral election are scattered from January 
to September of the even-numbered 
years. There is one general primary 
held in January, one in March, 7 in 
April, 8 in May, 6 in June, one in July, 
16 in August and 14 in September. 
Owing to the fact that presidential pri¬ 
maries are held separately, there are 
two general primaries in California, 
Maryland, Montana, West Virginia, 
Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, 
Nebraska and Ohio. These dates, of 
course, take no account of special and 
municipal primaries, which are timed 
to occur from 3 to 8 weeks before the 
election for which they are held. 


Direct Primaries 


13 


Parties to Which Applicable 

The primary is designed to apply 
only to the larger parties and only 
those parties which cast a certain des¬ 
ignated per cent of the vote at the last 
preceding election are obliged to con¬ 
form with the primary law, although 
this restriction is conspicuously liberal 
in several states. The criterion is the 
total vote cast for governor, or for Secre¬ 
tary of State or for the candidate 
receiving the highest vote at the last 
preceding general election. In some 
cases the state vote is used and in others 
either the state vote or the vote in the 
political sub-division affected. The 
primary is applicable to parties which 
cast at least 1 per cent of the vote in 
Maine, Nebraska and Wisconsin; 2 per 
cent of the vote in Illinois and Iowa 
and in Pennsylvania for state officers; 
3 per cent of the vote in California, 
Massachusetts, Missouri and New 
Hampshire; 5 per cent of the vote in 
Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minne¬ 
sota, North Dakota and Vermont and 
in Pennsylvania for county offices; 10 
per cent of the vote in Colorado, Idaho, 
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, 
New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Wash¬ 
ington, West Virginia, Wyoming and 
Delaware; 20 per cent of the vote in 
Oregon and Kentucky; and 25 per cent 
of the vote in Alabama and Virginia. 
In New York the act applies to parties 
which polled 15,000 votes and in Texas 
100,000 votes at the last election. In 
Kansas, Georgia, Arkansas, South 
Dakota, South Carolina, Oklahoma, 
Mississippi and Montana the law ap¬ 
plies to all parties. In California, 
where joint candidates are allowable, 
the percentage is double that of single 
party candidates. In addition to cast¬ 
ing 10 per cent of the vote, Idaho re¬ 
quires that the party must have had 3 
nominees for state office at the last 
election. 


Officers to Which Applicable 

Primaries, whether mandatory or op¬ 
tional, do not necessarily apply to all 
elective officers. The application is 
more generally uniform as to policy-de¬ 
termining officers than to those whose 
duty is more ministerial. Among the 
policy-determining officials to which 
the primary is applied, either by its own 
mandatory provisions or by preference 
provisions which may be invoked by 
the electors are: President and Vice- 
President, United States senator, con¬ 
gressmen, governor, and members of 
the state legislature. Of the local 
government officials, those having 
charge of the management and in¬ 
trusted with the expenditure of the 
funds of counties, townships, cities, 
towns and parishes, are generally in¬ 
cluded. The nomination of local 
judges, states’ attorneys, justices of 
the peace and constables is frequently, 
but by no means always, made at the 
primary. The chief division of local 
sentiment as expressed in the primaries 
is over the question of the nomination 
of state as well as local offices. The 
theory is that the primary has a more 
practicable application to local govern¬ 
ment units than to the state as a whole. 
Obviously this theory has not gained 
very wide acceptance as the only states 
in which the primary is applied to local 
officials only are the following: Indiana, 
which excludes all state officers, but 
affords a preference primary vote on 
governor and United States senator; 
Idaho, which, by an act of 1919, re¬ 
stricted the primary to local officers 
exclusively; Maryland; New York, 
which abandoned the state-wide pri¬ 
mary in 1921; Utah and Florida which 
apply only to municipal officers; and 
Kentucky, which is optional as to state 
officers and mandatory as to local. In 
addition there are a certain number of 
officers which are specifically excluded 


14 


The Annals or the American Academy 


from the primary. These include, in 
California, municipalities and counties 
under special charters, cities of the fifth 
and sixth classes and district officers not 
for municipal purposes; in Colorado, 
town officers, delegates to the national 
convention and presidential electors; 
in Illinois, to presidential electors, 
trustees of the State University, school 
and township officers; in Kansas, local 
school officials and officers of cities of 
less than 5,000; in Kentucky, school 
officers, presidential electors and of¬ 
ficers of towns of the fifth and sixth 
classes; in Massachusetts, cities and 
towns whose charters otherwise pro¬ 
vide; in Michigan, to commission-gov¬ 
erned cities or those having special 
charters; in Minnesota, to towns, vil¬ 
lages, third and fourth-class cities, 
members of school, park and library 
boards in cities of less than 100,000, to 
presidential electors and county sur¬ 
veyor; in Missouri, to school, town and 
village officers and to city officers not 
elected at a general election; in Neb¬ 
raska, to cities of less than 25,000, 
villages, precincts, townships, school 
districts and boards of supervisors; in 
Nevada, to city officers and officers of 
reclamation and irrigation districts; in 
New Hampshire, to city, town and 
school district officers; in New York, to 
town, village, school officers and presi¬ 
dential electors; besides, unofficial pri¬ 
maries may be held, but not at public 
expense; in Oregon, to cities and towns 
of less than 2,000 inhabitants. 

Single Shot Ballots 

Alabama has a provision in the pri¬ 
mary law which eliminates ballots on 
which but a single name is marked. The 
law provides that ballots commonly 
known as single shot ballots shall not 
be counted. Where two or more can¬ 
didates are to be nominated, the voter 
must express himself for as many can¬ 
didates as there are offices to be filled. 


Independent Candidates 

It frequently happens that the voters 
desire to nominate independent candi¬ 
dates for office subsequent to the pri¬ 
maries. There is a tendency on the 
part of party managers to discourage 
the practice of nominating independent 
candidates, and certain safeguards, 
some wise and others foolish, have been 
devised to insure party integrity or 
permit a free expression of opinion. In 
Arizona, candidates may be nominated 
by petition, but such petitions must be 
signed by voters who did not sign 
petitions before the primary and who 
did not participate in the primary. 
Arkansas permits nomination by peti¬ 
tion without restrictions. In Cali¬ 
fornia, only those persons who did not 
vote in the primary or sign a petition 
for the particular candidate may sign a 
petition and no person is eligible for the 
office who was defeated at the primary. 
In Colorado and Idaho, petitions for 
independent candidates must be signed 
by voters who did not vote at the pri¬ 
mary for any candidate for the office 
for wdiich the petition is filed. In In¬ 
diana, no person can run as an in¬ 
dependent candidate unless he files a 
petition 30 days before the primary. 
In Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana and 
Minnesota, a candidate who is defeated 
at the primary cannot run during the 
same year as an independent candidate. 

Non-Partisan Candidates 

In California, all judges, school, 
county, municipal and township of¬ 
ficers are nominated on a non-partisan 
ballot; in Iowa, all supreme, district 
and superior judges; in Minnesota, all 
judges of the supreme, district, probate 
and municipal courts; members of the 
state legislature, county officers and 
city officers in first and second-class 
cities; in Nevada, all judges of the 
supreme and district courts, justices of 


Direct Primaries 


15 


the peace, state superintendent of pub¬ 
lic instruction, university regents and 
school officials; in North Dakota, 
county officers, judges of the supreme 
and district courts, state and county 
school superintendents. 

Registration 

In practically all states which require 
registration for general elections, voters 
are also required to register for the 
primary. In California, any voter in 
registering may declare or decline to 
declare his party affiliation. If he 
declares his party affiliation he may 
vote both a party and a non-partisan 
ticket at the primary; if he declines to 
declare his party affiliation, he may 
vote only a non-partisan ticket. In 
Florida, the voter’s party affiliation is 
entered on the registration books, 
which are preserved for use at the next 
ensuing primary, and no voter can 
change his party affiliation except by 
filing an application in writing 60 days 
before the primary. In Maryland, any 
voter who declines to state his party 
affiliation cannot vote at the primary; 
a voter cannot change his party affilia¬ 
tion except by giving notice 6 months 
before election. In Massachusetts, the 
registration roll showing the party 
affiliation of the voters is kept for 3 
years and no voter can change his 
party affiliation except on written ap¬ 
plication and the change takes place 30 
days after the application is made. In 
Minnesota and Nebraska, the day of 
the primary is the first registration day. 

Sample Ballots 

In California, a sample ballot, con¬ 
taining all names in the same order as 
they will appear on the official ballot 
must be mailed to each voter at least 5 
days before the primary. 

Pre-Primary Conventions 

There are two states, Colorado and 
Minnesota, which hold pre-primary or 


endorsement conventions. In Colo¬ 
rado, these conventions are composed 
of delegates selected in any manner 
provided by rules of the party. The 
convention takes only one vote on each 
candidate and every candidate re¬ 
ceiving 10 per cent or more of the vote 
of the convention must have his name 
printed on the primary ballot. The 
names of the convention candidates 
are placed on the ballot in order of the 
number of delegate votes each received 
in the convention, the one receiving 
the largest number of votes being 
placed first. Candidates may also 
enter the primary by filing a petition, 
but petition candidates have their 
names entered on the primary ballot 
after the names of the convention can¬ 
didates. In Minnesota, a delegate 
election is held on the second Tuesday 
of March of even-numbered years to 
elect delegates to a county convention. 
Each election district is entitled to one 
delegate and such additional delegates 
as it is entitled to on the basis of the 
voting strength. At least 15 days 
before the convention, persons who 
desire to be candidates for delegate file 
a declaration. Within 10 days after 
the delegate election, a county conven¬ 
tion is held to elect delegates to a state 
convention and to a congressional dis¬ 
trict convention. The congressional 
district convention endorses district 
officers. The state convention consists 
of 3 delegates at large from each county 
and such additional delegates as the 
voting strength of the county may 
entitle it to. The state convention 
endorses candidates for state office, 
United States senator, presidential 
electors and delegates at large to the 
national convention. The fact that a 
candidate is endorsed is printed on the 
ticket. The State Central Committee 
consists of 2 members from each con¬ 
gressional district elected at the state 
convention by the delegates represent¬ 
ing such district; each candidate en- 


16 


The Annals of the American Academy 


dorsed by the convention and each 
candidate for congress selects one mem¬ 
ber and the candidate endorsed for 
governor is chairman. If any endorsed 
candidate is defeated, his selection is 
annulled and the successful candidate 
selects one. 

Open Primary 

Colorado seems to be the only state 
having the so-called open primary. 
All tickets are on one ballot. Any 
voter may vote one and only one ticket, 
and those tickets not voted are de¬ 
tached from the voted ticket and only 
the latter is deposited in the ballot box. 

Local Committees 

In addition to the precinct, county, 
congressional district and state com¬ 
mittees, which are the usual and pre¬ 
vailing committees in the party or¬ 
ganization, other local committees are 
either created by law or the creation of 
such committees is authorized. In 
Colorado, there may be ward and sub¬ 
division committees and if such are 
formed, they consist of the precinct 
committeemen and women resident 
therein. There are also judicial, sena¬ 
torial and representative district com¬ 
mittees which consist of the chairmen 
and vice-chairmen of the several coun¬ 
ties composing such districts, together 
with the candidates for office resident 
therein. In Florida, in addition to the 
statutory committees, party authorities 
may create any number of committees 
they desire. In Kansas, there are 
judicial, senatorial and representative 
district committees, composed of each 
county chairman of the district and one 
additional member chosen by the coun¬ 
ty committees for each 1,000 votes in 
excess of 1,500. In Louisiana, there 
are ward, town, plantation and repre¬ 
sentative class committees; in Michi¬ 
gan, judicial and representative district 
committees; in Mississippi, judicial 


district, flotorial, senatorial and other 
district committees; in Missouri, sena¬ 
torial and judicial district committees; 
in New Hampshire, there may be town 
and ward committees. 

No Opposition 

In the following states when there 
are just enough candidates for the office 
or offices to be filled, the candidate’s 
name is printed on the general election 
ballot and no election is held: Florida, 
Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, and 
Minnesota. 

Political Pamphlets 

Several states provide for the pub¬ 
lication of pamphlets designed to afford 
information to the voter as to the char¬ 
acter and political opinions of the 
several candidates. Provision is made 
for the distribution of these pamphlets 
so that every voter may obtain a copy. 
A fee is charged to each candidate to 
defray the cost of publication and 
distribution. These pamphlets con¬ 
tain the portraits of the candidates; a 
statement about the candidacy of any 
candidate or of his opponent. 

Run-Off Primaries 

In several of the southern states, the 
laws provide for run-off primaries in 
which only the two candidates having 
the highest votes participate. There 
may be one or more of these run-off 
primaries, depending on the event of 
the vote therein. Run-off primaries 
are held in Georgia, Louisiana, Mis¬ 
sissippi, South Carolina, Tennessee 
and Texas. 

County Unit Vote 

In Georgia, candidates for United 
States senator, governor, state officers, 
judges of Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals who receive the highest popular 
vote in any county, are considered to 
have carried the county and are entitled 


Direct Primaries 


17 


to the full vote of the county on the 
county unit basis, which is two votes 
for each representative the county is 
entitled to, in the lower house of the 
legislature. Tying candidates divide 
the county unit vote. County unit 
votes are consolidated by the chair¬ 
man and secretary of the state central 
committee of the party holding the 
primary and published, and the can¬ 
didates who receive a majority of the 
county unit votes are declared to be 
the nominees by the state convention. 
If two candidates tie on county unit 


votes, the one receiving the highest 
popular vote is declared nominat¬ 
ed. If no candidate for United States 
senator or governor receives a ma¬ 
jority, a second primary is held in 
which the two high candidates only 
compete. 

Cumulative Voting 

In Illinois, any voter may cast three 
votes for any candidate for the low r er 
house of the state legislature, or dis¬ 
tribute them among either 2 or 3 candi¬ 
dates. 


3 


Removable Obstacles to the Success of the 

Direct Primary 

By H. W. Dodds 

Secretary, National Municipal League 


D URING the past two years the 
direct primary has again survived 
an assault none the less threatening 
because the deed was planned and was 
being executed in secret. Some re¬ 
formers and practically all politicians 
were dissatisfied with it, and the reac¬ 
tion following the war seemed an 
opportunity to revert to the convention 
system. 

So it came about that beginning in 
1919, but more particularly in 1920 and 
1921, a number of primary repeal bills 
were introduced in state legislatures. 
These were unsuccessful with the ex¬ 
ception of New York, which returned 
to the convention system for the nomi¬ 
nation of all officials elected on a state¬ 
wide ticket. Again in 1922 definite 
plans were under way to re-introduce 
the convention in a number of states 
when the legislatures meet in 1923. 1 
It is yet too early to know whether such 
plans will be carried out. The con¬ 
spicuous success of insurgent candi¬ 
dates in the primaries of Iowa, Indiana 
and Pennsylvania, plus the results of 
the November elections, indicates that 
this winter will not be the opportune 
time to start a successful raid. The 
League of Women Voters can always 
be relied upon to defend the direct 
primary with energy. They reason, 
and not without justification, that a 
device opposed by so many professional 
politicians may not be without profit 

1 For a comprehensive statement of the move¬ 
ment to repeal or modify direct primary legisla¬ 
tion see article by Prof. R. S. Boots, The Trend 
of the Direct Primary , American Political Science 
Review, August, 1922. 


to the people, and are not distracted 
by phrases about greater party re¬ 
sponsibility through the convention 
system. 

Some Old Friends Now Cynical 

And yet, many early advocates of the 
direct primary are frankly cynical now. 
Obviously it has not lived up to expec¬ 
tations. Inferior candidates are still 
nominated. The “high-minded” ele¬ 
ment in the party is still flouted with 
seeming impunity. The new type of 
candidate so ardently awaited has not 
arisen. Has nothing been accom¬ 
plished? 

A sense of failure, we submit, is un¬ 
warranted although a natural con¬ 
sequence of too great expectations. It 
arises first from a lack of realization of 
the necessity and function of the “or¬ 
ganization,” which Mr. Hughes has 
consistently emphasized in an appeal 
for a more general participation in 
party affairs and the enforcement of 
tighter responsibility upon party lead¬ 
ers. 

But vastly more important has been 
the neglect of public opinion to com¬ 
prehend that the condition to be 
treated did not arise from the party 
convention and its abuses. Instead of 
viewing the convention as a cause, how 
much wiser it would have been to have 
looked upon it as an X-ray photograph 
of a complex political system. The 
direct primary has been disappointing 
because it was designed to counteract 
a symptom, a manifestation. In a 
sense, therefore, the agitation over the 
primary has been harmful because it 


Removable Obstacles to the Success of the Direct Primary 19 


has diverted the public mind from more 
fundamental reforms. Thus the avail¬ 
able supply of nervous energy has been 
consumed in superficialities. Fortu¬ 
nately, displeasure with the primary is 
beginning to energize a more scientific 
attack upon the boss. 

How the Long Ballot Affects the 
Direct Primary 

There remain today at least three 
outstanding reforms necessary of ac¬ 
complishment before any system of 
nominations will be satisfactory. In 
the order of their importance they are 
the short ballot, the merit system in 
public employment, and the reorgani¬ 
zation of county government. These 
indispensable reforms are not separate 
and distinct. They react upon each 
other and their mutual purpose is the 
abolition of government for entrenched, 
selfish politics by entrenched, selfish 
politicians. 

Now that the short ballot doctrine 
has become so generally understood 
and accepted, it is almost incredible 
that it should have had so little atten¬ 
tion from the fathers of the direct 
primary. Given a system of elections 
theoretically and practically wrong, 
what can seriously be expected from 
any system of nominations? For at 
least twenty years students of election 
methods have been telling us that we 
have too many elections and too many 
officials to elect. Any campaign, pri¬ 
mary or election, is a failure from the 
standpoint of popular participation 
unless it is vigorous. A vigorous cam¬ 
paign is the people’s safety. Yet 
during 1922 Chicago voters were sum¬ 
moned to the polls five times. They 
were compelled to register twice. Ex¬ 
clusive of the primary they were com¬ 
pelled to pass judgment on candi¬ 
dates for about fifty different offices, 
-n the St. Louis primary last summer, 
candidates were nominated for thirty- 


three offices. The Republican ballot 
bore 103 names and the Democratic 54. 
Primaries elsewhere are frequently as 
bad or worse. Naturally, but a few are 
conducted with sufficient vigor to 
arouse a real popular opinion regarding 
the candidates. 

When official opinion, pro and con, 
with respect to the direct primary is for 
the most part so shallow, it is refreshing 
to discover two state governors defend¬ 
ing it by daring to inquire why it has 
not fulfilled early hopes. In 1921 
Governor Dixon of Montana told his 
legislature that 

The most plausible argument advanced 
against the present primary law is that the 
voters cannot know the personal qualifica¬ 
tions of the long list of candidates for the 
various minor offices. 

Of course they do not, but they do have 
an opinion regarding the merits of the 
principal candidates. 

The same year in his message to the 
legislature, Governor Cox of Massa¬ 
chusetts noted the vocal sentiment 
against the primary and said 

So many candidates seek the many 
offices to be filled at a state-wide primary, 
that it is extremely difficult for even the 
careful voter to learn of the relative merits 
of the various candidates. The chief ob¬ 
jection to the present system of direct 
nomination in Massachusetts would in my 
judgment be removed by the adoption of 
the short ballot. 

The adoption of the short ballot of 
course implies administrative consoli¬ 
dation and reorganization. Fewer of¬ 
ficers elected, more appointed. As a 
consequence of short ballot propaganda, 
public attention, focused on the ap¬ 
pointing power, is being taught to 
demand a higher type of appointee. 
Thus we are gaining a new concept of 
administrative fitness and function. 
It involves a wider application of the 
merit system. 


20 


The Annals of the American Academy 


The Merit System Decreases 
Machine Control 

Historic civil service reform in this 
country began with the lower grades of 
employees and in many jurisdictions 
has never extended beyond them. In 
so far as it has succeeded in making 
them no longer mere pawns in the 
spoils game, it has helped to make the 
direct primary possible. Granting, for 
the sake of our argument, that the 
merit system has been haltingly and 
half-heartedly applied in many juris¬ 
dictions, that under the guise of civil 
service regulations political pull still 
works and party service is still de¬ 
manded, the indisputable fact remains 
that it has weakened the “rings” and 
increased the efficacy of the direct pri¬ 
mary as an instrument of revolt. 
Suppose that the large army of public 
employees, estimated at almost 3,000,- 
000 for the national, state and local 
governments, were still in the grip of 
the spoils system as our fathers knew 
it. Each one would have to be a faith¬ 
ful, if not willing, worker in the party 
vineyard. Picture them added to the 
already large body of ward and county 
workers. The thought appalls one. 
A suggestion of what would result is 
found in those countries where not even 
lip worship is paid to the merit system, 
and where the whole public personnel, 
civil and military, are political serfs of 
the dominant party. The chance for 
spontaneous self-development of public 
opinion would be nil. 

But while civil service reform has 
aided the direct primary as an engine of 
democracy, further progress is indis¬ 
pensable if the latter is to work well. 
The merit system in the lower grades 
has been obstructed by our failure to 
apply it in the higher grades of admin¬ 
istrative appointments. Whether or 
not the higher executives can be 
selected by competitive examination is 


debatable but does not concern us here. 
The important thing is that they be 
selected on the basis of executive 
ability and not as beneficiaries for 
party service. Until the higher ad¬ 
ministrative offices are amenable to the 
merit system, politics will continue to 
infest the lower grades; and so long will 
the organized army of the professional 
politician stand mobilized against a 
really popular nominating system. 

Thus the short ballot idea, involving 
as it does more direct executive respon¬ 
sibility, reenforces and accelerates the 
merit system. And only through the 
merit system can we attain to the clear 
air in which the issues, about which 
public opinion crystallizes, can have free 
play. A well organized state machine 
backed up by a few thousand faithful 
municipal and county employes is too 
great an opponent for any form of 
direct primary successfully to with¬ 
stand. 

Present County Government Sub¬ 
versive of Popular Nominations 

County government is the last refuge 
of old-fashioned, selfish politics. In 
it survives, more than in any other 
governmental unit, the antiquated 
political organization. It typifies in 
the pure state the evils discussed above, 
unaffected by efforts towards change. 
It knows not civil service reform; it is 
untroubled by administrative reorgan¬ 
ization. Its spoils have been aptly 
termed the base of political supplies. 
The state machine is a ganglion of 
which the county machines are the 
cells. The county court house is the 
primary unit of the state machine. 

The vast expenditures of county 
government in the United States are 
considered as rightful spoils for the 
dominant party. Party good feeling 
and camaraderie are never disturbed by 
considerations of efficiency with the 
administrative discipline which it en- 


Removable Obstacles to the Success of the Direct Primary 21 


tails. Its functions being of a routine 
nature and its subject matter never 
dramatic, the county is allowed to 
drift on undisturbed. Activities in 
which it fails conspicuously may be 
taken away; the county itself is never 
reformed. 

If the county primary had succeeded, 
it would have been nothing short of 
marvelous. The best argument against 
a return to the convention system is 
that such a system is based upon 
county organizations which feed at the 
court house. 

The “Organization” Must Have No 
Unfair Advantage 

The thesis of this article is that the 
direct primary will never be what w r e 
w r ant it to be, until our form of govern¬ 


ment is so changed that the political 
organization as such, is deprived of its 
unfair advantage. The long ballot and 
the spoils system (administration for 
political purposes) are the principal 
constituents of this unfair advantage. 
The field in which they operate today 
with greatest profit and least inter¬ 
ference is county government. De¬ 
prived of this unfair advantage, we 
have nothing to fear from political or¬ 
ganizations, which are necessary and 
useful. We can then view the pre-pri¬ 
mary slate made up at the pre-primary 
convention, as urged by Mr. Hughes, 
with equanimity. If popular elections 
are beneficial, there is nothing illogical 
about the direct primary. 

It ought to have a fair trial. 


Why I Believe in the Direct Primary 

By George W. Norris 

United States Senator from Nebraska 


O UR government is founded upon 
the theory that the people are 
sufficiently intelligent to control their 
own government. The argument I 
shall make is based upon the truth of 
this assumption. The direct primary 
is simply a method by which the will 
of the people can be ascertained in the 
selection of those who shall make and 
administer the laws under which all of 
the people must live. There is nothing 
sacred about it. If a better method can 
be devised I would not hesitate to 
abandon it and throw it aside. Neither 
will I claim that it is perfect. It has 
many weaknesses and imperfections. 
Until we can find a better system we 
ought to devote our energies toward 
its improvement by making whatever 
amendments experience demonstrates 
are necessary, always having in view 
the fundamental principle that we are 
trying to devise a plan by which the 
people will come as nearly as possible 
into the control of their own govern¬ 
ment. We must not expect perfection. 
We cannot hope to devise a plan that 
will make it impossible for mistakes to 
occur. We cannot by law change 
human nature. Selfish, designing, and 
even dishonest men will sometimes be 
able to deceive a majority of the people, 
however intelligent and careful they 
may be. Every government, what¬ 
ever may be the system of nominating 
candidates for office, ought to pro¬ 
vide by law for the recall of its 
officials by the people. If the people 
should make a mistake they will cor¬ 
rect it. If a public servant has been 
faithful and true to his trust, it will not 
be necessary for him to seek the 
approval of party bosses and machine 


politicians for his own vindication. 
The direct primary is in fact a part of 
the system of our election machinery. 
It is just as important, and often more 
important, than the official election 
which follows. A people who are quali¬ 
fied to vote for candidates at the 
general election are likewise qualified 
to select those candidates at the direct 
primary election. It requires no more 
intelligence to vote at that election 
than it does at the regular election. 
To deny to the citizen the right to 
select candidates and to confine his 
suffrage rights solely to a decision as 
between candidates after they have 
been selected is, in reality, at least a 
partial denial of the right of suffrage. 
It very often means that the voter is 
given the right only to decide between 
two evils. The right, therefore, to 
select candidates is fundamental in a 
free government, and whenever this 
right is denied or curtailed, the govern¬ 
ment is being placed beyond the con¬ 
trol of the people. 

Objections to the Direct Primary 

No better defense can be made of 
the direct primary than to consider the 
objections that are made to it. In 
doing this, it must be remembered that 
up to this time we have had but two 
systems. One is the old convention 
system and the other is the newer and 
more modern system of the direct 
primary. Those who are opposed to 
the latter, advocate the return to the 
convention system, and in doing this 
they point out various objections to the 
direct primary, which, they argue, are 
sufficient reason for discarding it. It 
is my purpose now to consider some of 


22 


Why I Believe in the Direct Primary 


23 


these objections. Some of them, in¬ 
stead of being objections to the direct 
primary, are in reality arguments in 
its favor. Other objections made are 
only partially sound, while some of 
them are untrue in fact. If we are 
seeking better government and have 
no ulterior motive whatever, we ought 
to be constructive in our criticism. 
This I shall try my best to be. I am 
seeking to find the best system of 
nominating candidates. The defects of 
the direct primary system, even in its 
crude state, are so much less than the 
wrongs and evils of the convention 
system, that an intelligent people will 
not hesitate to adopt it rather than the 
long used and universally condemned 
convention system, and devote their 
energies in a fair and honest way to 
the enactment of laws that shall, as 
far as possible, eliminate the defects 
of the primary. 

Does the Direct Primary Lower 

Party Responsibility and De¬ 
crease the Party Spirit? 

One of the objections that is always 
made to the direct primary is that it 
takes aw T ay party responsibility and 
breaks down party control. This ob¬ 
jection is perhaps the most important 
of any that are made against the direct 
primary. Politicians, political bosses, 
corporations and combinations seeking 
special privilege and exceptional favor 
at the hands of legislatures and execu¬ 
tive officials, always urge this as the 
first reason why the direct primary 
should be abolished. But this objec¬ 
tion thus given against the direct 
primary I frankly offer as one of the 
best reasons for its retention. The 
direct primary will lower party respon¬ 
sibility. In its stead it establishes in¬ 
dividual responsibility. It does lessen 
allegiance to party and increase in¬ 
dividual independence, both as to the 
public official and as to the private 


citizen. It takes away the power of 
the party leader or boss and places the 
responsibility for control upon the 
individual. It lessens party spirit and 
decreases partisanship. These are 
some of the reasons why the primary 
should be retained and extended. A 
party is only an instrumentality of 
government. Whenever, through party 
control, a public official casts any vote 
or performs any official act that is not 
in harmony with his own conscientious 
convictions, then the party spirit has 
become an instrument of injury to the 
body politic rather than a blessing. 
Laws enacted through such influences 
not only do not express the wishes and 
the will of the citizens, but it is in this 
way that bad laws are placed upon the 
statute book and good laws are often 
defeated. A public official should in 
the performance of his official duties 
be entirely non-partisan. Whenever 
he is otherwise, he is in reality plac¬ 
ing his party above his country. He is 
doing what he conscientiously believes 
to be wrong with the people at large, 
in order that he may be right with 
his party. 

The country owes most of its 
progress to the independent voter, and 
it is a subject of great congratulation 
that his number is increasing at a 
wonderfully rapid rate. Partisanship 
blinds not only the public official but 
the ordinary citizen and tends to lead 
him away from good government. In 
a Republican stronghold, the machine 
politician deceives the people by assert¬ 
ing that he is an Abraham Lincoln 
Republican, while in the Democratic 
locality, the same class-official seeks to 
carry public favor by claiming a politi¬ 
cal relationship to Thomas Jefferson. 
It is the party spirit that enables these 
men to cover up their shortcomings. 
It is the party spirit on the part of the 
voter that causes him to be moved by 
such appeals. Party allegiance and 


24 


The Annals of the American Academy 


party control if carried to their logical 
end, would eliminate the independent 
voter entirely; and incidentally, it ought 
to be said that the independent voter 
is always condemned by the politicians 
and those in control of political parties. 

The direct primary is comparatively 
new. The one circumstance more than 
any other that brought it into life was 
the evil in our government that came 
from the spirit of party. This evil 
grew from a small beginning and 
gradually increased until it pervaded 
and controlled our government. The 
means through which this evil spirit 
could most successfully work was the 
party convention. Its danger was 
seen long before it had reached a point 
where its evil was felt. Its demoraliz¬ 
ing influence upon popular government 
was forcibly predicted by George 
Washington. He warned his country¬ 
men in the most solemn manner 
against the baneful effects of the spirit 
of party generally. In speaking of 
party spirit in his Farewell Address, 
he said: 

It exists under different shapes in all 
governments, more or less stifled, controlled, 
or repressed; but in those of the popular 
form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and 
is truly their worst enemy. 

The alternate domination of one faction 
over another, sharpened by the spirit of 
revenge natural to party dissension, which 
in different ages and countries has per¬ 
petrated the most horrid enormities, is 
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads 
at length to a more formal and permanent 
despotism. The disorders and miseries 
which result, gradually incline the minds of 
men to seek security and repose in the 
absolute power of an individual; and, 
sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing 
faction, more able or more fortunate than 
his competitors, turns this disposition to 
the purpose of his own elevation on the 
ruins of public liberty. 

He declared it was not only the duty 
but to the interest of a wise people to dis¬ 


courage and to restrain the party spirit. 
Again he said: 

. . . and in governments of a mo¬ 
narchal cast, patriotism may look with 
indulgence, if not with favor, upon the 
spirit of party. But in those of the popular 
character, in governments purely elective, 
it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From 
their natural tendency, it is certain there 
will always be enough of that spirit for 
every salutary purpose. And there being 
constant danger of excess, the effort ought 
to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate 
and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, 
it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent 
it bursting into a flame, lest instead of 
warning, it should consume. 

The direct primary does not seek the 
destruction of party, but it places its 
control directly in the hands of the 
voter. It lowers party responsibility, 
and to a certain extent takes away 
party government by placing country 
above party. If the primary had done 
nothing more than the one thing of 
substituting individual responsibility 
for ‘party responsibility, thus doing 
aw^ay with party control, it would have 
given sufficient reason for its existence. 

Does the Direct Primary Give the 

Newspapers Too Much Power? 

Another objection made to the 
direct primary is that it results in 
giving control over nominations to the 
newspapers. There is no doubt that 
the direct primary increases the in¬ 
fluence and power of some newspapers. 
The newspaper that is true to its name, 
gives first of all, the news—unbiased, 
uncensored, and unprejudiced—and 
one whose editorial policy is open and 
fair will have its influence in political 
matters increased by the primary. 
This, ho'wever, is a good rather than a 
bad thing. The newspaper that pub¬ 
lishes the truth and gives a true report 
of political news ought to have its 
power and its influence increased. The 


Why I Believe in the Direct Primary 


25 


increase of influence on the part of 
such instrumentalities will tend toward 
a more intelligent selection of candi¬ 
dates, and therefore should be en¬ 
couraged rather than condemned. 

Does the Direct Primary Increase 

the Expense of a Campaign? 

Another objection made to the direct 
primary is that it extends the cam¬ 
paign over an unnecessarily long time, 
and it is for that reason, and others, 
too expensive. It is probably true that 
in actual practice the direct primary 
extends the time of the campaign, al¬ 
though there is no limit of time that a 
candidate for office can spend in his 
campaign. He can put in all his time 
if he desires, whether he is campaigning 
for a nomination at a direct primary or 
for a nomination at the hands of a 
convention. 

The advocates of the convention 
system claim that the convention is as 
representative of all the people as the 
direct primary. If this be true, then it 
will require as much time to secure a 
nomination at a convention as it would 
at a primary. If the convention is 
really representative of all the people, 
and carries out the wishes of the people, 
then the campaign in one case would 
be as long as in the other. The candi¬ 
date, to get the nomination, would 
undertake to reach as many voters as 
possible, the difference being that in 
the case of the primary, when he had 
convinced the voter, he would have 
nothing further to do, while in the case 
of a convention nomination he would 
first convince the voter in order that 
the voter might select a favorable 
delegate, and then put in a lot more 
time to see that the delegate carried 
out the wishes of those whom he repre¬ 
sented. The result, therefore, so far 
as time is concerned, would be favorable 
to the direct primary. Of course, 
everybody knows this is not what 


actually occurs in the case of the con¬ 
vention system. The bosses who con¬ 
trol conventions are the only ones 
necessary to secure the nomination. 
They manipulate the convention so as 
to bring about the desired result. 

In actual practice it has been demon¬ 
strated that the direct primary is not 
expensive. The expenditure of enor¬ 
mous sums of money to secure the 
nomination deserves righteous con¬ 
demnation, and there have been many 
glaring incidents where this condem¬ 
nation has taken place. There is no 
doubt but that there are many cases 
both in the primary and under the 
convention system, and likewise at 
the election, where the expenditure of 
large sums of money has been instru¬ 
mental, and in some cases the predom¬ 
inating influence, in securing nomina¬ 
tions and elections. It is an evil that 
I do not believe can be entirely elim¬ 
inated, but it is not confined to the pri¬ 
mary. It applies equally to the con¬ 
vention and to the general election. 
The man with money has an advantage 
over the poor man. This is true in 
politics as it is in business. The 
remedy lies in the enactment of 
stringent corrupt practice acts. The 
law should limit the expenditure of 
money for the purpose of securing 
nominations either at a direct primary 
or at a convention. It should prohibit 
expressly the expenditure of money for 
some of the practices indulged in. It 
should provide for the most complete 
publicity of all expenditures. These 
publications should take place both 
before and after the election. The 
violation of any of these laws should 
make the nomination or the election 
absolutely void. Political advertise¬ 
ments should, in my judgment, be 
prohibited by law. Contributions to 
religious and charitable institutions 
should likewise be prohibited. Proper 
criminal penalties for violation of the 


26 


The Annals of the American Academy 


law should be provided. It should 
perhaps be made the duty of some 
specific official to prosecute violations 
of this statute, not only against the 
successful candidate if he is properly 
charged, but in the same way against 
any other candidate at the direct 
primary, before the convention, or at 
the election. One of the difficulties 
with this kind of statute has been that 
prosecuting officials have not been 
called upon to act especially against 
the man who had been defeated, and 
it sometimes happens that the defeated 
candidate, being as guilty as the 
successful one, is so anxious to cover 
up his own violation of law that he is 
therefore not in very good condition 
to prosecute his opponent. 

It might be a good precautionary 
measure to provide by law not only 
that reports shall be made but that 
candidates, officers of committees, and 
managers of campaigns should be re¬ 
quired to submit themselves to cross- 
examination upon the filing of such 
reports, with a view of uncovering any 
violation of law that might have taken 
place. One of the difficulties in the 
enforcement of such laws at the present 
time is the party spirit and party 
responsibility. Where both parties are 
guilty, it is difficult to get anyone to 
father the responsibility for a prosecu¬ 
tion. If party responsibility were 
eliminated, and party regularity not 
considered almost a divine attribute, 
many of these illegal acts would be 
brought to light that are otherwise 
concealed and covered up. 

Complete publicity will go a long 
way toward relieving the evil. The 
intelligent citizen revolts at the ex¬ 
penditure of large sums of money for 
the purpose of controlling election, 
either direct primary or general, and 
the people themselves will do a great 
deal toward punishing those who are 
guilty of the offense. The expenditure 


of large sums of money in any honest 
campaign is not necessary, and the 
intelligent citizen knows this, and will 
condemn the man who indulges in it. 
From my personal acquaintance with 
public officials, I am satisfied that the 
direct primary has been instrumental 
in putting more poor men into office 
than the convention system. I have 
no doubt of the truth of this statement. 
I think the United States Senate is 
a demonstration of this proposition. 
There are a great many members of 
that body whom I could name, who 
would not be there if it were not for the 
direct primary, and most of them are 
poor. I have no doubt if the truth 
were really known, that candidates for 
office have spent more money under 
the convention system than under the 
direct primary. But that is not the 
only recommendation of the direct 
primary nor the only objection to the 
convention method. The public offi¬ 
cial who has to be nominated at a 
convention knows very well that in 
order to retain his place he must be¬ 
come a part if not the head of a politi¬ 
cal machine. He must keep this ma¬ 
chine oiled all the time he is in office. 
He must obey the mandates of those 
above him in order to secure his share 
of patronage, and he must use this 
patronage to build up his machine. In 
other words, he trades public office for 
political support. It costs no small 
amount of both time and money to 
keep his machine oiled. He must 
either pay it himself or become 
obligated officially to someone who 
does. The result of it all is that the 
public gets the worst of the deal. Ap¬ 
pointees are selected entirely upon 
their ability to control the politics of 
their communities, and not with regard 
to their qualifications for office. We 
have, therefore, poorer government at 
a greater expense. The public are pay¬ 
ing the salaries of incompetent men 


Why I Believe in the Direct Primary 


27 


who use their official positions to keep 
the machine in control. On the other 
hand, the public official who depends 
upon the direct primary for election is 
responsible to the rank and file of the 
people themselves. He can defy the 
machine and take the question directly 
to the people, and if he possesses the 
courage of his convictions, he will not 
do this in vain. This relieves him en¬ 
tirely during his occupancy of the 
office from the taking up of a large 
portion of his time in looking after his 
machine. He can devote his energies 
and his abilities entirely to the welfare 
of the country and to the performance 
of his official duties. 

It might not be out of place in this 
connection to relate my own personal 
experience. I have been nominated 
several times for the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives and twice for the Senate. 
Both times when I w T as a candidate for 
the Senate I had very active and 
spirited opposition. My nominations 
cost me, as I remember it now, less 
than five hundred dollars on each of 
these occasions. I know that if I had 
undertaken to secure a nomination at 
the hands of a convention, I would 
have been defeated had I not spent 
many times this sum of money, and 
probably would have been defeated 
anyway. In neither of these campaigns, 
so far as I was able to see, was I handi¬ 
capped on account of money. In look¬ 
ing back over it now, I do not see 
where I could have legitimately spent 
more than I did. 

Does the Direct Primary Lessen 

Deliberation and Intelligence 

in the Selection of Candidates? 

Another objection made to the direct 
primary is that it takes away the de¬ 
liberation which the convention system 
affords, and that therefore the primary 
does not give the proper opportunity 
for an intelligent selection of candi¬ 


dates. This objection is not true. 
The convention does not afford any 
opportunity for deliberation. It is a 
place where trades are made and not 
where judicious selection of candidates 
is indulged in. In a state convention, 
for instance, where there are a large 
number of candidates to be nominated, 
a candidate having behind him the 
delegates of a county or a group of 
counties will throw these votes any¬ 
where, to any candidate, for any office, 
except the one for which he is a candi¬ 
date. The candidate who secures the 
nomination is the one whose manager 
has been the most successful in making 
these trades. This manager does not ask 
the delegates behind some candidate for 
some other office anything about the 
qualifications of their candidate. He 
wants to know how many votes he can 
get for his candidate if he will throw 
his delegation in favor of the candidate 
for some other office. No question is 
asked on either side as to qualifications. 
Political bosses are often instrumental 
in having candidates get into the field 
for some office, not because they want 
to nominate the candidate, but because 
they are anxious to fill a particular 
office with a particular man, and they 
therefore try their best to get as much 
trading stock in the field as possible. 
The convention usually does its work 
in one day. It would be an impossibil¬ 
ity, even if delegates were seeking men 
with particular qualifications for par¬ 
ticular offices, for them to ascertain the 
truth within the short time in which a 
decision must be made. A political 
convention is anything but a delibera¬ 
tive body. 

There are always, of course, many 
delegates in all conventions moved by 
the highest of motives and doing their 
best to nominate good men for all the 
offices, but as a general rule they are 
in a small minority. The convention 
system has been condemned by an 


28 


The Annals of the Ajvierican Academy 


enlightened citizenship after a long and 
wearisome trial. This fact is so well 
known and understood by the people 
generally that its defense is almost a 
waste of words. The direct primary 
system, while by no means perfect, 
gives much more opportunity for in¬ 
telligent selection. The citizen in his 
own home has weeks of time to inform 
himself upon the qualifications of the 
various candidates seeking the primary 
nomination. He does this deliberately. 
He has no opportunity to make a trade. 
He decides the question upon what to 
him seems to be the best evidence. As 
the citizen becomes used to the direct 
primary, he takes greater pains to in¬ 
form himself. The direct primary 
tends to educate the people. They 
get together and discuss the qualifica¬ 
tions of the various candidates at the 
meetings of different kinds of clubs 
and organizations. They do this in 
no partisan way, but in an honest 
effort to secure the best nominees. 
This means that the electorate is con¬ 
stantly improving itself, and while 
improving itself, is improving the 
government by selecting better candi¬ 
dates for office. 

Primary Sometimes Results in 
Minority Nominee 

Another objection sometimes urged 
against the direct primary is that 
sometimes the nominee does not receive 
a majority of all of the votes. This is 
true. It is a defect that ought to be 
remedied, but those who urge this 
objection give it as one reason for 
abolishing the direct primary and 
going back to the convention system, 
and yet the same objection applies to 
the convention system. Who is able 
to say in any case that the nominee of a 
convention is a choice of the majority 
of the members of a party? There is 
no machinery in the convention that 
will disclose whether or not this is true. 


Why is it that those who are opposed 
to the primary will not be fair in their 
argument? If the direct primary 
should be abolished because the nomi¬ 
nee is sometimes voted for by only a 
minority, then likewise, the convention 
should be abolished because there is no 
way of telling that the nominee is 
favored by a majority of the party. 
This objection applies both to the con¬ 
vention and to the direct primary. By 
what logic can it be urged therefore, 
that the primary should be abolished 
and the convention reestablished? As 
far as I am able to see there is no way 
of relieving this objection as far as it 
applies to the convention, but there is 
a way of at least reducing the proba¬ 
bility of a minority nominee in the 
primary. If the primary law provided 
that the voter could express both a first 
and a second choice we would have 
gone a long way toward the elimination 
of this objection. If the law provided 
that in case no one received a majority 
of all the votes cast, that the second 
choice of the voters as to all candidates 
except the highest two should be 
counted, this would in most every case 
give the expression of a majority of the 
voters. In my judgment such a pro¬ 
vision ought to be included in every 
primary law. Even without this 
provision this objection is no greater 
against the primary law than it is 
against the convention, but with it, it 
gives the primary a great advantage 
over the convention in this respect. 

Primary Abolished in Some States 

It is alleged that the direct primary 
has been abolished in several of the 
states after giving it a trial. The in¬ 
tention seems to be to convey to the 
public the idea that those who have 
given the direct primary a fair and 
honest trial, have reached the conclu¬ 
sion that it is not practical, that good 
results are not obtained therefrom, and 


Why I Believe in the Direct Primary 


29 


that the people have voluntarily gone 
back to the convention on the theory 
that this system is after all superior 
to the direct primary. Those who 
offer this objection boastingly refer to 
New York, Idaho, South Dakota and 
Nebraska as instances where the direct 
primary has been discarded and the 
people have returned to the old con¬ 
vention system. Again our opponents 
are unfair, again they tell only half of 
the truth. 

In the state of New York, the legis¬ 
lature repealed the direct primary law 
insofar as it related to state and judi¬ 
cial officers. The repeal was urged 
very strongly by the governor. This 
repeal was an issue in the last election. 
The party that was successful in that 
election incorporated a plank in its 
platform promising to reestablish the 
direct primary if they were successful 
at the polls. The result was an over¬ 
whelming defeat of those who were 
instrumental in repealing the primary 
law. The governor, at whose instance 
this action was taken, was defeated by 
one of the largest majorities ever given 
to a governor in that state. The peo¬ 
ple spoke with no uncertain voice 
at the very first opportunity and over¬ 
whelmingly defeated those who were 
responsible for the repeal of the pri¬ 
mary law. 

In the state of Idaho, where the 
direct primary law was repealed by the 
legislature, the matter likewise became 
a leading issue in the next campaign 
and as a result those who favored the 
reenactment of the law were successful, 
and the new legislature of Idaho is 
pledged to reenact a primary law. 

South Dakota has had a very pe¬ 
culiar primary law. It has been re¬ 
pealed, modified and reenacted several 
times, and as I understand it, they 
still have a primary law with some 
modifications providing for a conven¬ 
tion as well as a primary. In my judg¬ 


ment it is far from being a workable and 
practical law. It provides for a great 
deal of useless and unnecessary ma¬ 
chinery, brought about from the fact 
that the law still retains the convention. 
Its weakness is that it does not get 
entirely away from the convention, but 
every vote that has been had in South 
Dakota indicates that the people are 
favorable to a direct primary, and that 
they will without doubt eventually 
secure a fair and workable law. 

In Nebraska the legislature at its 
last session repealed the direct primary 
as it applied to part of the state offi¬ 
cials. In that state, the constitution 
provides for a referendum, and when 
this law repealing the direct primary 
was passed, the proper petitions were 
circulated and filed by which the repeal 
was stayed until the matter could be 
referred to the people at a general 
election. When this general election 
was held, the repeal of the direct 
primary by the legislature was repu¬ 
diated by an overwhelming and crush¬ 
ing majority, so that the direct primary 
in Nebraska still stands. 

I know of no state that has given 
the direct primary a fair and honest 
test that does not consider it far 
superior to the old convention system. 
These cases that are cited by those 
who oppose the direct primary to show 
that the people are dissatisfied with it 
and have repudiated it, are in every 
case, so far as I know, completely 
answered by the people themselves. 
They have in every case repudiated 
the action of the legislature. While the 
people may not always be satisfied with 
a direct primary, they are nevertheless 
much better pleased with it than with 
the convention system, and there is no 
danger after having once tried a fair 
primary that an intelligent people will 
take a step backward to the conven¬ 
tion. The fight for the direct primary 
has always been a bitter one. Those 


30 


The Annals of the American Academy 


who advocate it have at every step had 
to contest the way with political 
machines, and all of the power and 
resourcefulness of these machines has 
been used to defeat the direct primary. 
Where they have not been successful 
in defeating the law, they have some¬ 
times succeeded in keeping in the law 
objectionable features, placed there 
often for the sole and only purpose of 
making the law objectionable. 

Conclusion 

It can be safely stated that the great 
majority of the American people are 
in favor of the direct primary, and that 
politicians, men seeking a selfish ad¬ 
vantage, political machines, and com¬ 
binations of special interests, constitute 
the vast majority of those who are 
opposed to it. It has some objection¬ 
able features, but upon examination it 
is found that practically every one of 
these applies with equal force to the 
convention. Many of these objections 
can be entirely eliminated as far as the 
direct primary is concerned, and prac¬ 
tically all of them can be partially 
eliminated. The direct primary re¬ 


lieves the party and party machinery 
of a great deal of its responsibility, and 
places this responsibility upon the 
individual voter. The intelligent Amer¬ 
ican citizen assumes this responsibility 
with a firm determination of performing 
his full duty by informing himself upon 
all the questions pertaining to govern¬ 
ment. It therefore results in a more 
intelligent electorate, and as this in¬ 
telligence increases, it results in better 
government. Experience will bring 
about improvement as the necessity is 
shown to exist by practice. It will not 
bring the millennium and it will not 
cure all of the defects of government, 
but it will relieve many of the admitted 
evils and act as a great school of educa¬ 
tion for the common citizen. The 
artificial enthusiasm created by the 
convention system which makes it easy 
to deceive the people will give way to 
the enlightened judgment of reason 
that will pervade the firesides and 
homes of a thinking, patriotic people. 
A citizenship that is sufficiently intelli¬ 
gent to vote at a general election will 
never surrender to others the right to 
name the candidates at that election. 


Defects in the Direct Primary 

By Karl F. Geiser, Ph.D. 

Professor of Political Science in Oberlin College 


T HE most significant fact revealed 
by a study of the direct primary 
is that one cannot carefully view it in 
theory and practice from its various 
angles without a hesitating skepticism 
as to its merits and defects. Concern¬ 
ing no political question is thoughtful 
opinion more divided. Though this 
great experiment in popular control 
has been in operation under our very 
eyes for three decades, the conclusions 
concerning its virtue vary from a faith 
which sees in it the near approach of 
the political millennium, to a pessimism 
which foreshadows the end of the 
present form of democracy. Neither 
has public opinion nor have legislative 
bodies come to any definite conclusions 
concerning the value of the primary 
as an agent to bring government nearer 
the people. 

New York, one of the first states to 
adopt the direct primary idea, has re¬ 
turned to the convention system for the 
nomination of candidates for the United 
States Senate, for elective state officers 
and for justices of the Supreme Court; 
while representatives to Congress, to 
both branches of the state assembly, to 
county and city offices are still chosen 
in general at the direct primaries. 
Opinion as to the wisdom of this change 
is as diverse as the methods of nomina¬ 
tion itself. Idaho has tried the direct 
primary, found it wanting and has 
returned to the convention system for 
state officials with apparently general 
satisfaction in the return to the simpler 
method. Limitations upon space for¬ 
bid an extensive account of the recent 
changes in the states, but it is safe to 
say that at present in most of the states 


where the direct primary has been 
state-wide and applying to all elective 
offices within the state, there is a 
general movement to return to the 
convention system either for general 
state and judicial offices, or for a 
modification of the law in some form 
toward a deliberative process such as 
a convention affords. 

Nor can it be truly said, as many 
writers assert, that the opposition to 
the primary comes almost entirely 
from the politicians or machine men 
of the party. It varies with the state 
and the interests affected. In South 
Dakota we have perhaps the best ex¬ 
ample where the politicians and the 
machine organization have attempted 
to defeat the will of the people. There 
a struggle of eighteen years against the 
machine resulted in what seems to be a 
victory for the politicians, for during 
that period four direct votes of the peo¬ 
ple in favor of areal direct primary were 
as often set aside by political manipula¬ 
tions of doubtful methods and even 
by court decisions. But to say that 
opposition to the direct primary al¬ 
ways or even generally comes only 
through sinister influence, is to simplify 
the problem beyond recognition and 
come to conclusions that a study of 
the undercurrents of the movement 
does not justify. 

Reasons for Opposition to Primary 
in California 

A summary of opinions collected last 
summer from some of the most repre¬ 
sentative and thoughtful men and 
women in various parts of California, 
where the primary idea in some form 


31 


32 


The Annals of the American Academy 


has been in operation for half a century, 
stated in general terms, bases opposi¬ 
tion upon the following facts: 

(1) that it lowers party responsi¬ 

bility; 

(2) that it breaks down the party- 

government principle; 

(3) that it is too expensive; 

(4) that the campaign extends over 

too long a period of time, thus 
taking too much time of 
candidates seeking reelection 
that should be devoted to the 
duties of their office; 

(5) that it results in government 

by newspapers, and, 

(6) that it creates a ballot that 

makes intelligent voting im¬ 
possible. 

All of the above are valid reasons 
for opposing the direct primary; and, 
it may be said in passing, too little 
attention has been given by those 
interested in good government to these 
phases of the problem, for they in¬ 
volve principles that are fundamental. 
Moreover, one may readily admit that 
opposition to a defective device or 
system, adopted to secure popular 
control of government, does not imply 
a desire to return to a former system 
equally bad. But the first essential 
to any improvement of present con¬ 
ditions is a recognition of the terms 
involved in the problem. With this 
in mind, I shall attempt in this paper 
to deal with principles rather than with 
statistics of votes, employing the latter 
only by way of illustration. 

Wherein the Primary Has Failed 

But whatever the defects or merits 
of the primary have been or may be 
in securing party responsibility and 
through it government responsible to 
the people—a sine qua non to all good 
government—it is not likely that the 
present primary laws will be generally 


repealed and the convention system 
in its old form adopted in its place. 
Of some things, however, we may now 
speak with comparative certainty. 
The primary has not fulfilled the ex¬ 
pectations of its early advocates; 
it has not brought forward better 
candidates in general; it has made 
elections more expensive; it has not 
increased the popular interest in elec¬ 
tions to the extent that was antici¬ 
pated; it has not rid our political system 
of the boss; it has made it easier for 
the demagogue; it has degraded the 
press; and most important of all, it 
has, by adding a long list of names to 
the ballot, made it impossible for even 
the most intelligent and conscientious 
citizen to express a discriminating 
choice at the primary polls. 

The Primary Ballot in Cleveland 

Why, one is inclined to ask at the 
outset, even discuss the question of 
party responsibility or quality of 
candidates, or any other question per¬ 
taining to popular control of govern¬ 
ment, when the chief agency through 
which the voter has access to his 
political institutions is so cumbersome 
that he cannot operate it? Why 
theorize concerning the results of a 
system which in fact cannot be applied 
to the purpose for wdiich it is intended? 
For example, in the last Ohio primary 
(August 8, 1922) the voter of Cleve¬ 
land who received the Republican 
primary ballot w T as asked to choose 
candidates for 43 offices from a list 
of about 175 names. The choice 
included one candidate for governor 
out of a total of nine candidates; one 
lieutenant-governor out of eight candi¬ 
dates—in these offices not an im¬ 
possible task; but it also included a 
selection of six senators out of twenty- 
four candidates, and sixteen repre¬ 
sentatives out of eighty candidates; 
and in both of these cases obviously 


Defects in the Direct Primary 


33 


an impossible task was imposed, when 
one considers the total number of 
names on the ballot and the five- 
minute time limit that may be imposed 
upon each voter in marking the ballot. 
While the illustration here given is 
taken from the largest city in the state, 
similar situations present themselves 
in Cincinnati, Toledo, Columbus and 
Dayton; and in village and rural com¬ 
munities the difference in favor of a 
more intelligent vote is one of small 
degree. 

In the Village of 0 Berlin 

A somewhat extensive personal in¬ 
quiry among the voters in the village 
of Oberlin, having a population of 
about 5,000, revealed the fact that 
not a single voter who was asked 
whether he had been able to make a 
discriminating choice for every office on 
the primary ballot answered in the 
affirmative; not even the members of 
the party committee, though their 
knowledge of the candidates was more 
extensive than that of the average 
voter, could give adequate information 
concerning all of the names on their 
own party ballot. These are facts 
that must be faced in every considera¬ 
tion of the question of party responsi¬ 
bility, and in every attempt to bring 
government more directly under popu¬ 
lar control; for the conditions imposed 
by these facts must be overcome before 
even the most enlightened electorate 
can gain access to those who control 
and administer the institutions and 
laws of a community or state. 

Party Responsibility 

Party responsibility seems to have 
been lessened by the fact that in destroy¬ 
ing the power of the machine it has taken 
the core of the party. This is shown 
by the practical disappearance of the 
Democratic Party from Wisconsin, 
where the political contest is now waged 


between the Progressives headed by 
LaFollette and the old-time Republi¬ 
cans who were defeated in the last 
primaries. It has also lowered party 
cohesion and therefore responsibility, 
by taking from the organization the 
power of selecting candidates, thus 
causing a general loss of interest in the 
final outcome of election. When every 
one may easily become a candidate, 
interest wanes by the mere fact of 
numerous names of uninteresting and 
commonplace candidates who appeal 
neither to the imagination nor the 
intelligence of the average voter. 
The professional politician who runs 
for office makes an appeal to party 
loyalty through methods which, how¬ 
ever unethical or degrading they may 
be, at least make for party spirit and 
devotion to the cause of an historic 
tradition connecting itself with Lincoln 
or Jackson. 

Effect on Party Organization 

The very idea, in fact, of the primary 
is based upon a revolt from the or¬ 
ganization. In the very nature of 
the case, where the organization does 
not select the candidates it does not 
and cannot be held responsible to the 
voters for the quality of candidates 
selected, nor for their faithful per¬ 
formance of duty while in office. From 
an extensive inquiry among practical 
politicians, from those who favored 
and those who were opposed to the 
primary, I have found a general agree¬ 
ment to the effect that the primary 
tended to break up parties, weaken 
the party organization and therefore 
to dissipate responsibility. That this 
is true may be seen from the fact that 
where a candidate is strong enough 
to get himself nominated against the 
wishes of the party organization, he 
invariably appeals not only to the 
voter of his own party, but also to the 
independent and even the opposition 


34 


The Annals of the American Academy 


party. Thus in the last election in 
Ohio, a candidate for the General 
Assembly who received the nomination 
on the Republican ticket at the pri¬ 
mary, sent one of his workers to a Demo¬ 
cratic political meeting to appeal for 
votes. The fact that such a candidate 
is refused the endorsement of the 
party leaders in the machine organiza¬ 
tion necessarily makes for non-co- 
operation. 

Is the Party System Doomed? 

An important question then, in 
view of actual operation of nominating 
methods, is whether party organization 
and the party idea of government 
still have that sustaining virtue claimed 
for them which enables the average 
voter to get access through the party 
to the political institutions of the 
country, which in theory he is supposed 
to control. There are those who 
frankly say that the party system in 
the old sense is doomed and that some 
other institution or system will take 
its place. Nor is such a position 
without reason. There are evidences 
at hand to support this view in every 
country where the party system pre¬ 
vails; and while a general discussion 
of party government in foreign coun¬ 
tries would lead us too far afield, 
it would be interesting and instructive 
to analyze the causes and motives for 
the formation of “blocs” and “coali¬ 
tions ” on the Continent and in England 
today. There may be nothing ab¬ 
solutely new under the sun, yet it may 
be seriously doubted whether a mere 
“post-war” allusion explains the mo¬ 
tives that underlie the fall of dynasties, 
the quick change of ministries and the 
disregard of the representative idea of 
government as manifested in Soviet 
Russia. It is, of course, not strange 
that many of the governments of 
Europe could not long survive the 
cataclysmic crises of the Great War. 


But the careful student of current 
politics, while he may be unable to 
explain, cannot fail to observe in the 
chaos of the political world today 
something very foreign to the old 
political order, whether for good or 
ill history alone can tell. 

Evidences of Party Dissolution 

Confining our observations to party 
responsibility in America, it may be 
instructive to examine the motives or 
forces which under normal conditions 
unite men into a political party. Aside 
from the general tendency to react 
to a common stimulus, which may be 
in many cases neither more nor less 
than a desire to be on the winning or 
popular side; or aside from the inability 
to overcome the fatalistic trend of 
the multitude so difficult in all popular 
governments, what has hitherto kept 
a party together? Professor C. E. 
Merriam, in his excellent w T ork on 
The American Party System summa¬ 
rizes the motives of party action as 
“habit, response to leaders, personal 
or group interest, economic or other¬ 
wise, the sense of community responsi¬ 
bility, the response to the appeal of 
the formula, specific gratification of 
desire for political-social contacts.” 

Disregard of Party by Certain 
Candidates 

But even if we accept these varied 
motives as the cohesive power that 
makes for party unity and party spirit, 
the reason for adherence to a particular 
party is still unexplained; for similar 
motives might be urged as a cause for 
a break or revolt from a party instead 
of adherence to it. Why, for example, 
in the recent primaries in many states, 
have Republican or Democratic candi¬ 
dates at primaries rebuked their re¬ 
spective parties by the advocacy of 
principles which in no way, other 
than name, conformed to the tradi- 


Defects in the Direct Primary 


35 


tional views held and advocated by the 
party leaders? Beveridge of Indiana, 
Pinchot of Pennsylvania, LaFollette 
of Wisconsin and Brookhart of Iowa, 
wffiile accepting the Republican name 
in aspiring to office, were to all intents 
and purposes independent of the Re¬ 
publican tradition and might have 
called themselves more accurately, 
leaders of a Liberal Party. 

To what extent is the Republican 
Party, in any of the four states men¬ 
tioned, responsible for the action of 
these men either in the chair of gov¬ 
ernor of a state or in the United States 
Senate? That is, after all, the question 
that requires an answer if party re¬ 
sponsibility is to be properly estimated. 
The difficulty in answering this question 
will become more obvious if we remem¬ 
ber that Brookhart of Iowa made his 
campaign for the Senate on three main 
issues: (1) the repeal of the Esch-Cum- 
minsTransportation Law; (2) an attack 
on the Federal Reserve Banking Sys¬ 
tem which he blamed for many of the 
farmer’s financial troubles, and (3) 
“for laws to encourage cooperative 
control of production, credit, marketing, 
and buying by organized agricultural 
and industrial labor.” 1 Whatever the 
motives may have been that led the 
Iowa voters to cast 42 per cent of the 
total votes cast for six candidates at 
the primary for Colonel Brookhart, 
the cold fact remains that in his first 
mentioned issue he openly attacked 
a Republican measure; in his second, 
he scored an institution inaugurated 
by a Democratic administration now 
under Republican control; and in his 
third plank, he borrowed from the 
Non-Partisan League. All this in a 
state that had long been Republican 
and gave President Harding nearly 
400,000 majority. Nor is Brookhart’s 
case an isolated example where party 
organization and party allegiance were 

1 Nation , Vol. 115: 4G6, Nov. 1, 1922. 


disregarded by the successful candidate 
and an appeal made directly to the 
electorate. In municipal politics we 
already have a non-partisan system in 
both the primary and the general 
election, and in many states the pri¬ 
mary laws have been modified to remove 
the candidates for judicial office from 
the party column. 

Tendencies in England 

That the tendency to revolt against 
the present party system as such, 
does not have its entire explanation 
in local or geographic areas but rather 
in the spirit and tendencies of the times, 
whatever the cause, is also seen in 
recent political theories which break 
sharply with traditional methods of 
political action. And in some coun¬ 
tries practice has followed closely upon 
the heels of the theorist. ' Two years 
ago there was an attempt in England 
to return to the two-party system led 
by Asquith and the Cecils, but recent 
events in the United Kingdom give 
little evidence of a return to the party 
system of Gladstone and Salisbury. 
Who knows but that in the not distant 
future, at least in the two great democ¬ 
racies of the world—England and 
America—candidates will disavow 
party organization entirely, and on the 
basis of issues alone, will appeal to an 
enlightened plebiscite in utter disre¬ 
gard of the present party system? 
In America, however, that will be 
possible only when the complex en¬ 
cumbrance now called the primary is 
abolished or so modified as to enable 
the voter to distinguish through a long 
list of names, the vital issues which he 
seeks to impose upon those who govern. 

Party Spirit in America and 
England Compared 

At all events we need not consult 
election statistics to know that where 
primaries involve the nomination of 



86 


The Annals of the American Academy 


numerous non-political offices or of 
decisions which the masses are in¬ 
capable of making, it will fail to in¬ 
crease party responsibility. It is a 
question, then, of whether the party 
system under American conditions is 
more effective as a means of registering 
the popular will, than an irresponsible 
combination of fortuitous circum¬ 
stances, which place in nomination men 
whose chief claim to office is that they 
were the choice at the primary. Un¬ 
fortunately, the significance of the 
party in America is so little understood 
by the average voter that the primary, 
which has done much to destroy party 
cohesion and party action, is extolled 
for the very qualities which should 
condemn it. It is still the fashion 
among a large number of the so-called 
“intellectuals” to stand aloof from 
party organization as something to be 
despised. 

This attitude is due in part to a con¬ 
fusion of two separate and distinct ideas 
designated by terms, which, on account 
of the similarity of sound, are thought of 
as conveying similar ideas. The terms 
are party and partisan; and it is easy to 
ascribe to the party-man qualities of 
mind which permit his party to think 
for him, which he regards as aspersion 
upon his independence. This atti¬ 
tude of the American citizen toward 
the party stands in striking contrast 
to that of the English citizen, who is 
not ashamed to be identified with a 
party having able leaders. Nor are 
these two attitudes without reason. 
The English voter who follows a 
leader, usually follows an idea which 
may rise to the dignity of a philosophy 
of life as well as a real policy of state. 
If that leader be a Burke, a Cobden, 
or a Bright, adherence to his cause will 
be a mark of distinction capable of 
the best thought. We need only to 
reflect upon the history of the free 
trade movement in England to be 


assured of this fact. The political 
apothegm “when in doubt, kick Cob¬ 
den” had an entirely different signifi¬ 
cance in English political life than the 
accusations against Tammany Hall 
or the Philadelphia Gas Ring in Amer¬ 
ica, while a membership in the Ku 
Klux Ivlan would scarcely have quali¬ 
fied one for membership in the Cobden 
Club. 

Before any nominating system in 
America will enlist the interest of 
the average voter, the entire attitude 
toward parties as factors in govern¬ 
ment must be changed. No institution 
will command the obedience or respect 
of mankind that is not rooted in honor¬ 
able traditions, or does not rest upon 
a recognized moral principle of high 
endeavor. However low the actual 
range of political action may be, 
however dark the current of its daily 
life, the average voter will hesitate 
to identify himself with an institution 
which he feels is not approved by the 
best thought. 

Essentials to Responsible 
Government 

But aside from the complex or¬ 
ganization and methods of nomination, 
and the general absence of a party 
spirit to supply the necessary cohesive 
force to maintain party discipline, and 
reform the party from within the 
organization, there is no clear con¬ 
ception among the majority of voters 
of the essentials necessary to a govern¬ 
ment responsible to a political party; 
and without a common or popular 
conception as to the meaning, purpose 
and function of political institutions, 
leadership and responsibility in the 
true sense becomes impossible. Be¬ 
fore considering this phase of the 
question, however, it may be well to 
state in general terms what the essen¬ 
tials to responsible government are. 
They may be placed under three heads: 


Defects in the Direct Primary 


37 


(1) There must be, under whatever 
name or form it may appear, a political 
party comprising a majority of the 
electorate; (2) there must be means or 
devices adequate to a free expression 
and registration of the popular will; 
and (3) there must also be, on the 
part of the voter, a knowledge and 
an intelligence equal to the service 
he is called upon to perform, whenever 
he exercises the right of franchise. 

Of these three essentials it must be 
admitted that the first obtains only 
partially; the second to a still less 
degree than the first; while the third 
essential, because of conditions im¬ 
posed by the first two, is almost en¬ 
tirely negligible. There are, indeed, 
in addition to those here mentioned, 
other conditions necessary to a truly 
responsible party government; such 
as, for example, the complete absence 
of sinister exterior influences which 
tended to deflect the course to a free 
choice, and the presence of clearly 
defined issues. Passing over the minor 
conditions, however, and confining 
our attention to any one of the three 
major essentials mentioned above, 
we arrive at the conclusion that even 
the regular election, taken by itself, 
though usually less complicated than 
the primary, results in irresponsible 
government because of the confusion 
of issues with candidates; and the 
primary has aggravated the difficulty. 
It has raised high above the heads of 
the average voter a mechanism too 
difficult to comprehend and con¬ 
sequently too difficult to operate 
successfully. It has assumed the false 
premise that the problems of govern¬ 
ment depend for their solution upon a 
wider popular contact, rather than 
upon a deeper and higher intelligence. 
The cold fact that government is an 
extremely complex institution and 
that political intelligence is extremely 
simple, must ever remain as the anchor 


of political reform; and progress to¬ 
wards good government must always 
be conditioned upon the fact that the 
electorate, though honest and of good 
intentions, can operate through the 
electoral franchise only the simplest 
forms of machinery. 

The Burden Imposed Upon the 
Voter in California 

Measured by these standards which 
express the theory of party responsi¬ 
bility, let us turn to the practical 
operation of these institutions which 
are to give us a government subject 
to popular control. Examples from 
two fairly typical states may serve 
as illustrations of the impossible burden 
we have placed upon the electorate. 
The general election laws of California 
comprise a volume of 283 pages of 
very fine type, and although intelligent 
voting does not require a thorough 
digest of the entire election code, the 
mere extent of the regulations from 
nomination to final election suggests 
the extent of the burden imposed upon 
the electorate. The arguments respect¬ 
ing the amendments to the state 
constitution and the proposed statutes 
submitted to a referendum of the 
electors at the election of November 7, 
1922, form a pamphlet of 144 pages. 
The proposed amendments and statutes 
formed 30 separate propositions for 
the state at large, with four additional 
questions for the county of Los An¬ 
geles. These propositions appeared 
upon a single ballot, measuring twenty- 
two by twenty-eight inches, together 
with the names of forty-nine candidates 
seeking thirty-one offices. Nor was 
the difficulty confronting the voter 
fully expressed by the number of items 
to be voted upon. Many of the legal 
propositions supplemented or repealed 
former statutes and amendments, and 
an intelligent vote, therefore, implied 
a knowledge of la^v and conditions far 


38 


The Annals of the American Academy 


beyond the face of the ballot. Where 
or how was the voter to get this knowl¬ 
edge? If he depended upon news¬ 
papers, broadsides and pamphlets 
with which he was deluged, his con¬ 
clusions were in danger of being pur¬ 
chased by the highest bidder rather 
than by a dispassionate process of 
reasoning and observing. The Los 
Angeles Evening Herald of November 
6, 1922, contained three very large 
advertisements against the so-called 
“Lawyers Bill,” and the bankers were 
said to have spent $150,000 to defeat 
the measure. 

Primary Laws and Voting in Ohio 

The election laws of Ohio as com¬ 
piled in 1920 make up a volume of 
325 pages; and while here again in¬ 
telligent voting does not require fa¬ 
miliarity with the entire code, that 
part which in some form refers directly 
to the status and condition under 
which the right of franchise is exer¬ 
cised would by itself form about 100 
pages. How intelligently this fran¬ 
chise was exercised at the last general 
election was shown in numerous in¬ 
stances; for the sake of brevity a single 
example must suffice. Of the three 
proposed amendments to the state 
constitution the one that attracted 
most attention, and the one upon 
which one would naturally expect 
the clearest expression of the popular 
will, was the liquor amendment, pro¬ 
viding for the manufacture and sale 
of beverage containing 2.75 per cent 
alcohol by weight. The ballot was 
so worded, however, that many a 
stanch prohibitionist voted “ wet ”; and 
so far as I know, no one outside of a few 
tax experts is suspected of having cast 
a discriminating vote upon either of the 
other two proposed amendments, one 
referring to indebtedness and bond 
issues and the other to taxation. 

The official figures for the last 


(August 7, 1922) Ohio primary also 
form an interesting commentary upon 
this method of voting. While many 
states have apparently modified their 
primary laws upon the theory that 
direct nomination is least objectionable 
for county and local offices, the last 
Ohio primary election shows that in 
many cases county officials, to take 
a single example, were nominated by a 
large minority of the total votes cast. 
Thus in Lorain County, nine candidates 
running for the office of sheriff on the 
Republican ticket, received a total 
of 10,889 votes; but the successful 
candidate received only 3,064 votes, 
or about one-third of the total number 
of votes cast. Questions: Was he 
the choice of the party? Upon any 
conceivable theory of responsible gov¬ 
ernment, what portion of the total 
voters of all parties in the county does 
he represent? 

Conclusions 

In conclusion I summarize the re¬ 
sults of this study by saying that the 
direct primary has decreased party 
responsibility because: 

1. It has tended to break down 
party organization and destroy united 
party action. 

2. It has retained for popular nom¬ 
ination and election both administra¬ 
tive and policy-determining offices, 
thus creating a still longer and more 
incomprehensible ballot than we had 
under the old system. 

3. By assuming that all public 
offices should be open to all citizens, 
it has encouraged the fallacy that all 
citizens are qualified; with the result 
that so many run for office that the 
average voter cannot detect who are 
not qualified. 

4. It is illogical in that it accepts 
representative institutions and at the 
same time denies faith in them, by 
directing candidates elected to office, 


Defects in the Direct Primary 


39 


instead of trusting them to their best 
judgment. 

5. It assumes that the function of 
the elector is to govern, rather than 
to see that good government is enacted, 
by changing government from a Repub¬ 
lican to a Democratic form. 

“The spirit of democracy is cor¬ 
rupted,” says Montesquieu, “not only 
when the spirit of equality is extinct, 
but likewise when they fall into a 


spirit of extreme equality, and when 
each citizen would fain be upon a 
level with those whom he has chosen 
to command him. Then the people, 
incapable of bearing the very power 
they have delegated, want to manage 
everything themselves, to debate for 
the Senate, to execute for the magis¬ 
trate, and to decide for the judges. 
When this is the case, virtue can no 
longer subsist in the republic.” 


The Direct Primary and Party Responsibility 

in Wisconsin 

By Arnold Bennett Hall, J.D. 

Of the faculties of Political Science and Law of the University of Wisconsin 


T HE difficulty with the investiga¬ 
tion of this kind of problem is the 
lack both of objective evidence and a 
scientific technique of approach. Po¬ 
litical science has been too much ab¬ 
sorbed in purely descriptive, historical, 
or speculative work, to develop a really 
scientific methodology. It is indeed 
rare even to find discussions of po¬ 
litical problems approached from a 
functional point of view. Most articles 
dealing with the direct primary, for 
example, have been merely descriptive 
of the laws involved, or systematic 
arrangements of a priori arguments pro 
and con. Rarely even has there been 
an attempt to analyze functionally 
the nature of the end to be attained, or 
to examine the appropriateness of the 
primary to the given task, or to check 
up its actual operation by objective 
evidence. There are, of course, con¬ 
spicuous exceptions, but in the main the 
above observation seems to be correct. 
In the present discussion the author has 
attempted to secure all available 
evidence, but there is little to be found. 
What we need is to begin at once the 
attempt to formulate a scientific tech¬ 
nique or methodology as a basis of a 
real science of politics. We need to 
know what facts and factors are 
pertinent in explaining our political 
experiences, and in seeking the methods 
of effective political control for the 
future. After we have reached some 
conclusions as to what facts and 
factors are important, we must then 
strive to develop a system for the 
observation, collection and recording 
of such phenomena, and we will then 


have the basis of a constructive science. 

As Professor Merriam has recently ob¬ 
served, there are tremendous agencies 
already at work such as the state and 
federal census bureaus and other 
statistical bodies, which could be 
easily utilized in the observation and 
recording of pertinent phenomena, 
if we only knew what matters were 
pertinent, and could urge upon them 
definite and concrete requests. Until 
some such action can be taken po¬ 
litical science will not come into its 
own. We need not be surprised to 
find the statisticians or psychologists 
or some other learned group invading 
our field and rendering this constructive 
service to the public, which should be 
the special prerogative of the political 
scientist and in which he should find 
his fullest opportunity. These ob¬ 
servations were again emphasized in 
the writer’s mind by his experience in 
preparing this paper, and he submits 
them as a not entirely irrelevant ap¬ 
proach to the consideration of the 
present problem. 

As indicated by the title, the scope 
of this paper is limited to the operation 
of the direct primary law in Wisconsin 
and its relation to the doctrine of 
party responsibility. Only the state¬ 
wide primary will be considered and 
all aspects of the primary law will be 
ignored except those that directly 
affect the operation or organization 
of party government within the state. 

Party Responsibility 

While there have been almost as 
many theories of party responsibility 


40 


Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


41 


as there have been writers upon the 
subject, nevertheless there do seem to 
be a few rather definite dogmas, one or 
another of which is generally accepted 
among recent writers as part and parcel 
of the theory. In the first place the 
discussion of party responsibility in 
America generally proceeds upon the 
assumption of a two-party system. 
While there are always minor parties 
of varying degrees of strength, the 
struggle generally rests between the 
two great organizations. In those 
states where there is only one party 
of any considerable strength, the 
struggle generally lies between two 
factions of the dominant party. Ex¬ 
cept in unusual emergencies, the prac¬ 
tical political instinct of the average 
American seems to rebel at the ap¬ 
parently futile investment of time or 
interest in minority organizations. 

In the second place the doctrine of 
party responsibility is based upon the 
theory that the processes of popular 
government require certain extra legal 
activities on the part of the people, 
which the people cannot do directly 
as well as they can through the agencies 
of party organization. These activ¬ 
ities are principally the nomination 
of candidates for public office, the con¬ 
duct of the campaign, the promulgation 
of political issues, and the securing of 
harmony between the different de¬ 
partments of government. 

“Our state constitutions provided 
for the election of certain state officers, 
but made no provision for their nomina¬ 
tion. But popular election, unless 
restricted to a choice from a very 
limited few, becomes an obvious ab¬ 
surdity. When the author was attend¬ 
ing the public school, it was decided 
to have all the school children march 
to the cemetery on Memorial Day. 
The boys in the author’s class were 
asked to elect a captain to lead the 
march. A vote was taken by secret 


ballot, without any opportunities for 
the scholars to talk it over and de¬ 
velop any consensus of opinion. The 
result was that out of about thirty 
votes cast, most of the pupils received 
one vote, and the boy who was elected 
received four. He was the most 
cordially disliked boy in the group, 
and secured his election by exchanging 
promises with three neighbors to vote 
for each of them if they would vote 
for him, and then finally voting for 
himself. No one could possibly say 
that the election was an expression of 
the group opinion. If there had been 
two or three candidates from whom 
the voters could have made their 
choice, another more representative 
body would have been elected. Nomi¬ 
nations are thus essential to effective 
popular elections. 

Political Group Organization 

“The people did not take long to 
realize that if they were to control the 
government of the state, they must 
organize into groups, according to 
political theories or prejudices, nomi¬ 
nate a candidate and place the party 
label upon him, in order that the public 
might have a basis of judging him and 
of holding his group accountable for 
his conduct. It was the only way 
public opinion could function in the 
control of state government. Political 
parties originated in this very obvious 
necessity. Likewise, it was only 
through group effort that political 
issues could be formulated. The great 
mass of the people become articulate 
only when their leaders, seeking to 
interpret their thoughts and aspirations, 
formulate broad, general principles 
upon which they can vote with a ‘yes’ 
or ‘no.’ 

“Moreover, the leaders soon ob¬ 
served a popular indifference and 
ignorance regarding political issues. 
If a group believing in certain political 


42 


The Annals of the American Academy 


concepts desired to cause them to 
prevail, it became necessary for them 
to carry on campaigns of agitation, 
education and suggestion to win ad¬ 
herents to their cause. This resulted 
in the development of much elaborate 
machinery for the purpose of winning 
popular support, while the waging of 
political campaigns became one of the 
important functions of the political 
party. ... ” 1 

Likewise, there remained the neces¬ 
sity of devising some means by which 
political harmony could be secured 
between the different departments of 
government. No constructive pro¬ 
gram is normally possible when the 
legislative department is controlled 
by one party and the executive by 
another. Likewise administrative 
friction of a very decided type is caused 
among the different executive heads 
of the state government when they 
represent conflicting groups, which is 
quite possible under our anomalous 
state system of decentralized admin¬ 
istrative departments. These evils 
could be eliminated only by a system 
of party government, in which the 
voters chose between parties rather 
than persons, thus generally insuring 
the control of all departments of the 
government by the victorious political 
group, providing party harmony and 
making possible the achievement of 
any constructive program that the 
dominant party might be inclined and 
competent to undertake. 

Finally, the real importance of having 
political parties to carry on these func¬ 
tions becomes evident only when we 
contemplate the inherent nature of 
popular government. Real democracy 
is not assured by the establishment of 
universal suffrage. It is only when 

1 Arnold Bennett Hall, Popular Government, 
pp. 66-68. Macmillan, N. Y., 1921. See also 
Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, pp. 193-253. 
New York, 1922. 


that suffrage represents a public opin¬ 
ion of the majority, and expressed 
within such limits of action as will 
secure the acquiescence of the minority 
that we have effective government by 
the people. For if the minority refuse 
to acquiesce, we have government by 
force and not by the people. This is 
dramatically illustrated by the present 
unhappy efforts of the Irish people 
to achieve democracy. Moreover, this 
public opinion which represents the 
majority must be a real opinion, with 
sufficient coherence, durability and 
vitality to exercise a controlling influ¬ 
ence, for the time being, over the affairs 
of government. Unless there is a 
public opinion that can accomplish 
this, there is no popular control. 
Democracy becomes a myth, while the 
actual sovereignty passes to some des¬ 
pot, dictator, oligarch or ruling class. 
“There are many instances in Central 
America where dictators have aroused 
tremendous enthusiasm in behalf of 
democratic government, but it has 
rarely continued long enough to estab¬ 
lish even a semblance of democracy. 
This popular manifestation was not 
real opinion, but merely a popular 
impression. Created by the authority 
and contagious personality of some 
dominant figure, there was no basic 
conviction of liberty, popular govern¬ 
ment, or orderly restraint with which 
the popular impression might establish 
a vital contact. There was no founda¬ 
tion of national unity, philosophy, or 
character upon which an enduring 
structure of democracy could be 
erected .” 2 

Necessary Elements of Public 

Opinion for Political Control 

This brings us to a consideration of 
what are the constituent elements of a 
public opinion that has, to a sufficient 

2 Ibid., p. 8. 


Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


43 


degree, the elements of continuity and 
vitality that will enable it to achieve 
political control. Also what political 
problems come within its effective 
scope? President Lowell has given 
the best statement of the former. His 
theory is that public opinion that has 
the necessary qualities of stability to 
afford a basis for popular government, 
must, if it originate in the voice of 
authority or suggestion, as most opin¬ 
ions do, be in harmony with the estab¬ 
lished convictions and philosophy of 
the people. This does not guarantee 
the accuracy of the opinion, but it does 
insure for it a reasonable degree of 
permanence and power. But in order 
“that there may be a real public opin¬ 
ion on any subject, not involving a 
simple question of harmony or con¬ 
tradiction with settled convictions, 
the bulk of the people must be in a 
position to determine of their own 
knowledge, or by weighing evidence, 
a substantial part of the facts required 
for a rational decision.” 3 

It follows from the above that a 
popular election is significant only 
in so far as it registers a real public 
opinion. If an election does not do so 
it amounts to naught. It represents 
nothing more than caprice, fancy or 
the accidents of chance. It carries no 
mandate to those entrusted with official 
power. It gives the officers no assur¬ 
ance of support in the execution of 
their policies or direction in the formu¬ 
lation of their programs. Public of¬ 
ficers are judged by capricious and 
whimsical opinions, while the real 
sovereignty tends to vest in the hands 
of those most skilled in the art of dema¬ 
goguery and of exploiting the ignorance 
and cupidity of the people. With the 
vast development in the art of ad¬ 
vertising, with its capacity to control 
by suggestion, the hired makers of 

3 A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular 
Government, pp. 18-22. New York, 1913. 


publicity will yield a power almost 
impossible to conceive. Where, there¬ 
fore, there is no public opinion there 
can be no popular control. 

Doctrine of Political Responsi¬ 
bility 

If this be true it seems clear that 
there should be no popular votes taken 
except on matters regarding which 
there can fairly be said to exist a 
real opinion. This places rather defi¬ 
nite limitations to the questions and 
matters that may properly be sub¬ 
mitted to a popular vote. If the ques¬ 
tion is one upon which there is no 
established fundamental convictions 
or philosophy among the people and 
if it involves matters outside the 
popular range of information, ex¬ 
perience or thinking, there can be no 
real public opinion on the matter and a 
vote upon the subject will register only 
the passing fancies of the people and 
the accidental considerations of the 
moment. 

It is here perhaps that the doctrine 
of party responsibility occupies its 
strongest ground. For under our sys¬ 
tem of government many matters have 
been left to the people which involve 
decisions on matters in regard to which 
no public opinion can exist. It has 
been the business of the political party 
to take up these matters, assume the 
responsibility for their proper treat¬ 
ment, reduce them into such simple 
forms that public opinion may operate 
upon them, and then leave the issues 
so simplified to the judgment of the 
people. It requires no argument to 
show that there could be no public 
opinion to function upon the selection 
of public officers without the aid of 
some nominating method. If the peo¬ 
ple of the state were asked on election 
day merely to go to the polls and vote 
for whomsoever they might desire, 
without any prior nominations or 


44 


The Annals of the American Academy 


campaigns of publicity, ordinarily there 
would be such a babel of tongues and 
variety of opinions that the winning 
candidates would have back of them 
a very small minority of the voters. 
The result could not be said to rep¬ 
resent a true opinion. The decision 
as to who is the best candidate in the 
state is a question of fact, outside the 
range of information of the average 
voter, and not involving a question 
of theory or conviction that might 
harmonize or conflict with the voter’s 
beliefs. A public opinion on such a 
question, under such circumstances, is 
thus practically impossible. 

So with the formulation of public 
issues. The desires or aspirations of 
the multitude cannot become articulate 
save through the voice of leadership. 
No other means has yet been devised 
by which the mass of the people can 
express an opinion. The political party 
meets these two problems by nominat¬ 
ing a list of candidates and promulgat¬ 
ing a party platform. This is done 
by both the great parties and the voter 
has a definite issue submitted to his 
decision. Which list of candidates is 
the best? Which political platform 
is most entitled to respect? 

Moreover, the two parties then pro¬ 
ceed to carry on a campaign of popular 
education, bearing on the relative 
merits of the two tickets and the two 
platforms. These campaigns generally 
last for a number of weeks, with the 
result that the average citizen gains 
some ideas both as to the merits of the 
candidates, and the nature, meaning 
and value of the platforms. As be¬ 
tween the two alternatives the voter 
generally is enabled to come to some 
kind of intelligent conclusion, and the 
final results tabulated on election day 
then tend to represent a real opinion. 
Thus the political party takes the 
original problems upon which public 
opinion cannot exist, reduces them to 


specific proposals upon which the 
public may answer with a yes or no, 
places the public in possession of 
material facts, and thus subjects the 
ultimate question to the possibilities 
of decision by a true opinion. 

Since the great majority of voters 
vote straight for one party or another, 
this generally assures automatically 
that the different departments of the 
government will be under the control 
of the same party and pledged to the 
same program, which will insure po¬ 
litical harmony, the minimum of 
friction, and the possibility of working 
out a constructive program. 

Need for Higher Standards 

Someone will here object that under 
such a system, both parties may 
nominate worthless candidates, both 
may promulgate hypocritical platforms 
and their campaigns of publicity may 
be misleading and unworthy. All this 
must be admitted. It has frequently 
so happened. But there seems no 
relief other than a regenerated citizen¬ 
ship, eager and capable to compel the 
political parties to attain higher stand¬ 
ards of performance as the price of 
popular support. These parties are 
usually managed by the most capable 
and astute politicians that their ranks 
afford. The first and controlling ambi¬ 
tion of every political boss is to retain 
his hold upon official power. He can 
do this only by securing a larger share 
of popular support than is accorded to 
his political foes. The organization 
that can most unerringly give a major¬ 
ity of the voters what they want is 
destined to control the government. 
The ultimate struggle for good govern¬ 
ment is thus necessarily wrought out 
in this competitive struggle between 
the opposing parties for political sup¬ 
port. 

If the results are bad, and they fre¬ 
quently are, it is not due to the system. 


Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


45 


but to the tragic fact that our citizens 
do not force the competitive struggle 
for votes into the higher planes of 
civic ideals and accomplishments. So 
long as impossible, hypocritical and 
conflicting promises will bring in a 
majority vote, there is little likelihood 
that practical politicians will find it 
either expedient or safe to carry the 
fight to higher planes of constructive 
statesmanship. It is quite common 
for politicians to desire so to do, but to 
be forced to a lower type of campaign 
performance in order to secure the 
necessary votes. Nothing will be ac¬ 
complished in the way of permanent 
reform until we face these uncompli¬ 
mentary but basic facts. To salve the 
popular conscience and provide the 
public with moral alibis for civic short¬ 
comings by undiscriminating attacks 
upon politicians and parties is the most 
vicious type of demagoguery. For it 
prevents and postpones the only effec¬ 
tive remedy, viz., a real civic awaken¬ 
ing. 

Nor is this all. As long as human 
nature and the laws of psychology re¬ 
main substantially the same, popular 
government over areas as large as our 
states can be carried on only by po¬ 
litical parties. So far as one can see, 
the civic activities of the voter will be 
confined to activities for party control 
within the party, and to his final choice 
at the polls between contending parties. 
No one yet, in any age, has found any 
better way of making the hopes and 
aspirations of the multitude become 
effective in the forms of political con¬ 
trol . 4 The inherent limitations on 
mass movements and public opinion 
are such, that, without some form of 
party government, democracy cannot 
exist. For the public to face these 
facts, to realize the tremendous mission 

4 Viscount James Bryce, Modern Democracies , 
Vol. I, pp. 119, 122, n. 1. 2 vols. New York, 
1921. 


of the party, and to apply to the party 
in power the test of strict accounta¬ 
bility for its stewardship, are the first 
steps in the improvement of our system 
of party responsibility, and in the in¬ 
telligent approach to the solution of 
its problems. 

The Direct Primary Law 

Having thus examined at some length 
the doctrine of party responsibility 
and its inherent place in the life of 
popular government, we are now ready 
to consider to what extent and in what 
way the functioning of this doctrine 
has been affected by the direct primary 
law in Wisconsin. This has been one 
of the hotly contested points in the 
whole discussion that was waged with 
some bitterness several years ago and 
that has not yet entirely abated. 

It is significant to note that the 
importance and value of party re¬ 
sponsibility has been admitted by both 
sides to this controversy . 5 

This leaves as the only matter of 
contention the question as to whether 
the direct primary law has in fact inter¬ 
fered with the normal and beneficent 
operation of the principle of party 
responsibility. This question will be 
discussed in connection with the argu¬ 
ments that have been made, to show 
the evil effects of the primary law upon 
party responsibilities and which seem 
to fall into four general propositions. 

Evil Effects of Primary Law 

The first proposition is that the 
direct primary law has placed directly 
into the hands of the people certain 
functions, viz., the nomination of state 
officials, upon which a public opinion 

6 Robert M. LaFollette, Message to Wisconsin 
Legislature, January, 1903, quoted in Paul M. 
Reinsch, Readings on American State Govern¬ 
ment, p. 388. Boston, 1911. 

Emanuel L. Philipp, assisted by Edgar T. 
Wheelock, Political Reform in Wisconsin p. 83. 
Milwaukee, 1909. 


46 


The Annals of the American Academy 


cannot exist except occasionally in the 
case of the candidate for governor. 
Where the governor, or a man other¬ 
wise equally well known, is a candidate 
for reelection and there is only one 
other candidate, the people will fre¬ 
quently have sufficient information 
regarding the relative merits of the can¬ 
didates so that the formation of a real 
opinion may be possible. But if neither 
of the candidates happens to be well 
known to the people, regardless of 
their ability or worth, or if there hap¬ 
pens to be a large group of candidates, 
the possibility of the primary vote for 
governor registering a true opinion 
is extremely meager. 

The chances of a real opinion are 
even more remote in the case of the 
candidate for other offices about whom 
the people are much less likely to be 
informed. The writer attempted to 
test this out by asking twenty-one 
audiences of about one thousand 
persons each in different parts of the 
state, how many of those present had 
any definite, authoritative information 
regarding the qualifications for candi¬ 
dates for state office at the last primary, 
not counting the candidates for gov¬ 
ernor or any candidate whose home 
might happen to be in that community. 
There were on the average of three to 
each audience, or one-third of one per 
cent. Surely no one would argue that 
such a vote could possibly represent 
true public opinion. What then, does 
the vote represent? Largely the fac¬ 
tors of fancy, caprice, suggestion and 
the like. If unworthy candidates are 
selected, unless they are notorious, 
the public would not know until it was 
too late, and then there would be no one 
to be held accountable. 

Under the convention system, these 
candidates would be nominated by a 
state convention, composed of delegates 
elected by the party voters. This con¬ 
vention would be composed mainly of 


politicians, men who have made practi¬ 
cal politics a subject of major interest, 
who make it a business to know the 
various candidates for office, and who 
are familiar with the type of men the 
offices demand. The state leaders 
would be there and this body of po¬ 
litical experts—for that is exactly what 
they are—would confer, discuss, com¬ 
promise, and vote until a majority 
or two-thirds had agreed upon a list 
of candidates. There is one thing 
upon which all practical politicians do 
agree, and that is the all importance 
of party success. Consequently, in 
selecting the list of candidates, the 
consideration of first importance is 
to secure a ticket that will win the 
public favor and give such an effective 
administration of public affairs as to 
insure the party’s continuance in 
power two years hence. 

Lack of Party Responsibility 

Thus under the convention system 
party affairs are largely regulated by 
party experts, whom the people may 
hold to rigorous accountability for 
their conduct. A definite party re¬ 
sponsibility is thus established, for 
the people always have it within their 
power to administer the stinging re¬ 
buke of political defeat, in case the 
party managers have abused their 
trust. But under the primary law 
no one is really responsible, for the 
work is not done by the group of party 
managers, but is attempted by the 
people themselves, who cannot be 
held to any effective responsibility, 
since it was a task for wdiich less than 
one per cent were adequately prepared. 

On matters of this kind, objective 
evidence is very meager, but we are 
not entirely without it. As is gener¬ 
ally known, the main political fight in 
Wisconsin is not between the two great 
parties, but between the two factions 
of the Republican Party. One faction 



Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


47 


is generally spoken of as the LaFollette 
faction and the other as the Conserva¬ 
tive group. (In the last two years this 
latter group has been dominated by 
men who have chosen the name of 
Progressive Republicans.) In the in¬ 
terests of administrative harmony all 
the chief executive officers of state 
should belong to one faction or the 
other, and then that one faction could 
be held responsible for the state ad¬ 
ministration. As a matter of fact, there 
has been but one election since the 
adoption of the direct primary in 
1906 when the five chief executive 
officers have been elected by the same 
faction, and that one time was in the 
LaFollette landslide of 1922. Under 
such circumstances there is neither 
party nor factional responsibility. 
Moreover, experience has shown that 
it was too much to expect that the 
political antagonism between these 
officers would not find expression in 
many ways positively detrimental to 
the public service. Such phenomena 
have very rarely appeared under the 
convention system, for the interest 
of each officer is generally identified 
with the party destiny and it becomes 
the selfish interest of both the party 
and the candidate to prevent friction 
and to give an administration that will 
please the public. 

Again, this same lack of party 
responsibility is evidenced to a more 
alarming extent in the failure to es¬ 
tablish a political unity between the 
legislative and executive departments, 
which is usually indispensable to a 
constructive legislative program. Dur¬ 
ing three administrations since the 
direct primary law was enacted, viz., 
1909, 1913 and 1921, there has been a 
governor of one faction and a legislature 
of another. Where the hostility be¬ 
tween the factions is as bitter as it is in 
Wisconsin, the evil consequences of 
such a situation are apparent. In 


those years there was neither party 
nor factional responsibility for the 
control of government, and if there was 
really a popular government in Wis¬ 
consin it would have been difficult 
to locate. Except under extremely 
uncommon circumstances such a situ¬ 
ation would be impossible under a 
convention system. The author has 
been unable to find anywhere a parallel 
under the convention method of nomi¬ 
nation. 

Lack of Focus between Established 
Political Leaders 

The second line of argument that 
has been suggested to show the evil 
effects of the direct primary upon party 
responsibility is that the direct primary 
tends to focus public attention upon 
contests between irresponsible factions 
or outstanding political leaders, rather 
than between established political 
parties with their continuing responsi¬ 
bility. 

The first question presented here 
is the question of fact; has the effect 
of the direct primary law in Wisconsin 
been to center interest as above in¬ 
dicated? This question is complicated 
by the fact that the Democratic Party 
in Wisconsin is decidedly a minority 
party, and was so before the days of the 
direct primary. Since 1890 it has 
elected only two governors (in 1890 and 
1892) although there were a number of 
fairly close contests up until 1906, 
and only one close contest since and 
that one in 1912. In the last two 
decades the Democrats have carried 
Wisconsin once for the Presidency 
(1912) and elected one United States 
senator (1914). With so few hotly 
contested campaigns between the two 
great parties, it would be an easy 
matter for a spectacular contest in the 
Republican Party to overshadow the 
final election. So far as one is able 
to judge by the popular interest as it is 


48 


The Annals of the American Academy 


manifested during the campaign, such 
seems to be the fact, especially in 
recent years. 

But would it not have been the case 
likewise if the convention system had 
survived? There seems no way of 
obtaining objective evidence on this 
question. The evidence does tend to 
show that during the period before the 
primary law, there was relatively 
more interest in the election and less in 
the nominating contests than in the 
period following the abolition of the 
nominating convention. Moreover, 
some allowance must be made for the 
fact that the struggle for the direct 
primary was coincident with the strug¬ 
gle of Robert M. LaFollette for the 
mastery of the Republican Party. 
When a man of such tremendous 
popular appeal enters such a struggle, 
it is bound to attract an eager interest 
regardless of what nominating ma¬ 
chinery he has to use. 

Nevertheless, when all these factors 
have been considered, it does seem that 
since the advent of the direct primary 
there has been a well-defined tendency 
for popular interest to shift from parties 
to factions and to personalities. This 
seems to be accounted for by two rea¬ 
sons. Under the direct primary, it 
must be the business of the candidate 
to arouse the interest of the people, 
for they alone are to judge his case. 
Publicity becomes the passion of the 
hour, for unless a man’s name becomes 
known to the voters he cannot succeed. 
Under the convention system, how¬ 
ever, attention is generally centered 
upon the delegates and party managers, 
and the public takes little active in¬ 
terest save in the ultimate results. 
The second reason is the feature of 
the open primary. The Wisconsin 
law makes it possible for any voter to 
vote in any primary regardless of what 
party he represents . 6 Moreover, this 

? Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.13. 


can be done without the knowledge 
of his party associates, since no one 
can know in what primary each voter 
cast his vote. This necessarily tends 
to arouse the voter’s interest in the 
outstanding individual or factional 
struggle rather than in the control 
of his own party. 

Results 

It is alleged in support of this argu¬ 
ment, that this has three evil results: 
In the first place, factional responsi¬ 
bility is generally impossible to achieve, 
since under the direct primary it has 
so frequently happened that different 
departments of the government were 
controlled by different factions. This 
we have already found to be the case. 
In the second place, even though it is 
possible to establish factional or per¬ 
sonal responsibility for the conduct 
of government, such responsibility 
is not organic or continuing, and does 
not have the momentum of organized 
responsibility wdiich is essential to 
stable government and the working 
out of far-sighted reforms, and which is 
possessed by political parties under 
the convention system. Thirdly, when 
interest is focused on a factional fight 
in the dominant party, it tends to 
weaken the competing party until it is 
no longer an effective competitor, 
whereas real healthy competition be¬ 
tween two contending parties is essen¬ 
tial to the best conduct of government. 

The first one of these three alleged 
evils we have already disposed of. 
The second alleged evil will now be 
considered. Where there are such 
well-defined factions as are found in 
Wisconsin, and when one of them is led 
by such a phenomenal political genius 
as Senator LaFollette, the question 
may well be asked: Why will not fac¬ 
tional responsibility or the personal 
responsibility of the leader be suffi¬ 
cient to enable public opinion to func- 


Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


49 


tion through them in the control of 
government? (This is on the assump¬ 
tion that under the direct primary 
Senator LaPollette or his faction, 
or some opposing leader or faction, 
could always secure the control of all 
departments, something that has hap¬ 
pened only once since 1906. It does 
look now, however, as if it might quite 
regularly in the near future.) 

Factional versus Party 
Responsibility 

This squarely raises the issue of 
whether personal or factional responsi¬ 
bility, if possible, is as reliable a me¬ 
dium for public opinion to function 
through in the control of government, 
as party responsibility would be. 
Again it is difficult to find objective 
evidence that is relevant. There are, 
however, some facts of evidential value. 
In 1922 the faction opposed to La- 
Follette held a state convention in 
Milwaukee, adopted a ticket to sup¬ 
port at the party primaries, went 
through the forms of setting up an 
organization and adjourned. Similar 
conventions have been held several 
times before on like occasions, but 
there has emerged from none of them 
a permanent political organization, 
capable of assuming the continuing 
responsibility of fighting for a pro¬ 
gram or of accepting the responsi¬ 
bility of one if entrusted with official 
power. Even when this group was 
successful in electing Governor E. L. 
Philipp to three successive terms, there 
was no definite organization to “carry 
on” when Governor Philipp declined 
to run again. They tried to nominate 
as his successor an outstanding and 
able man, but they could not succeed. 
Governor Philipp succeeded by virtue 
of his dominant personality and ability, 
and when the personality was removed, 
what was supposed to be an organized 
political moyemeiit disappeared be¬ 


cause there was no political organiza¬ 
tion able to carry on the policies for 
which he stood. The public opinion 
that approved of Governor Philipp’s 
policies had no means of self-expression, 
for there was no organization identified 
with those policies which they could 
seek to place in power. 

Suppose something had happened 
to Senator LaFollette at any time since 
1906 up to 1920, were his policies and 
political activities so identified with a 
well-organized, well-disciplined po¬ 
litical organization covering the whole 
state, that public opinion would have 
had an immediate organization through 
which they could have continued those 
policies in control? The writer does 
not believe there was any such organ¬ 
ization prior to 1922. On the other 
hand, if Senator LaFollette had been 
working under a convention system, 
what would have been the probable 
results? He would have had to have 
controlled, organized, and worked 
through the regular Republican ma¬ 
chine, which he undoubtedly would 
have done. He might have had to 
make concessions here and there to 
hold his convention and prevent a bolt 
as public men must occasionally do. 
But in the unhappy event of his demise, 
under these circumstances, his policies 
and ideals would have been so identified 
with the Republican state machine 
that they would have carried on of 
their own momentum, so long as 
public opinion might desire. 

Senator LaFollette has been so popu¬ 
lar as a leader and so adroit as a politi¬ 
cian that he has needed no organization 
for his political success. But his 
followers will want to see his influence 
continue long after he has gone. It is 
not enough that the memories of his 
deeds will linger long in the hearts of 
his associates. If they are to become 
articulate in the control of government, 
there must be either some outstanding 


50 


The Annals of the American Academy 


political genius like himself or a real 
political organization of established 
strength and ability, like a regular 
party organization, through which his 
followers may express themselves. 

It is argued that an organization 
could be easily perfected, but such 
organization, disciplined and effective, 
cannot be organized over night. It 
takes years of association and common 
effort, under the stimulus of able lead¬ 
ership, to forge a party of sufficient 
strength and cohesive force to insure 
that harmony and continuity of action 
essential to the constructive control of 
government. 

It is further argued that if either fac¬ 
tion needs an organization at any time, 
it merely means a political struggle 
between the factions to secure the 
Republican organization. But there 
is no Republican organization in any 
effective sense. The primary law pro¬ 
vides for a state central committee, 7 but 
until the recent campaign it has not 
functioned for about a dozen years. 
The struggle has been between persons 
and factions, while party organization 
of an effective type has disappeared 
from the public interest. The writer 
believes that this has been a real loss 
to the cause of popular control, the 
real significance of which will not 
appear until the disappearance from 
political life of its dominant figures. 

Interest in Dominant Party 
Accentuated 

The third alleged evil of diverting 
public interest from parties to factions 
will now be considered. This argu¬ 
ment is that the direct primary by 
making party nominations a matter of 
public interest and right, tends to 
accentuate the interest in the affairs 
of the dominant party to the injury 
of the minority party. This would be 
likely to take place only where one 

7 Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. Sec. 5.20. 


party is already so dominant that 
nominations are generally equivalent 
to elections, as in the case in Wisconsin. 
Happily this is a matter upon which 
there is objective evidence. Taking 
the percentage of Democratic votes 
cast in presidential years, and in off 
years for a period of sixteen years be¬ 
fore and after the direct primary law, 
we get the following results: 


Year 

Presidential 
Year Per¬ 
centages 

Off-Year 

Percentages 

1888. 

43 


1890. 

51 

1892. 

48 

1894.. 

37 

1896. 

37 

1898. 

48 

1900. 

36 

1902. 

39 

1904. 

39 

1906. 

32 

1908. 

36 

1910. 

34 

1912. 

42 

1914. 

36 

1916. 

38 

1918. 

33 

1920. 

35 

1922. 

10 




These figures while significant are not 
conclusive. They show the Demo¬ 
cratic Party to have weakened materi¬ 
ally, particularly in the off years. 
Especially significant is the Democratic 
vote in 1922, at the time when the 
Democrats were making great gains 
generally they all but disappeared 
in Wisconsin. The difficulty in draw¬ 
ing conclusions from these figures is 
that they may not be due entirely to 
the direct primary but to other causes, 
the most conspicuous of which was 
Senator LaFollette's popularity which 
transcended party lines. It seems 
fair, however, to conclude that Wis¬ 
consin is rapidly losing a strong* 




























Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


51 


healthy, minority party, and that the 
direct primary is at least a contributing 
factor. 

The Open Primary 

The third general argument against 
the direct primary as destroying party 
responsibility is based upon one of the 
peculiar features of our primary law, 
viz v the open primary. As already 
observed there is no party test in the 
Wisconsin law and there is absolute 
secrecy as to which party ticket one 
votes in the primary election. 8 It is 
argued that by. this device Democrats 
may vote in Republican primaries 
in sufficient numbers to determine the 
result; which means that there can 
be no party responsibility for the 
simple and sufficient reason that mem¬ 
bers of other parties may determine 
party action. Moreover, it is urged 
that Democrats in voting in Republican 
primaries will be tempted to vote for 
the poorest candidate in order to insure 
a Democratic victory. Mr. Victor 
Berger in 1920 asserted that the 
Socialists voted in the Republican 


delegate election to the national con¬ 
vention and that they claimed the 
credit for electing all of the LaFollette 
delegation save two. Such state¬ 
ments are difficult to check. An 
examination of the election figures 
showed that such might have been 
true in the case of several of the dele¬ 
gates but that it could not have been 
true of the whole delegation. To the 
extent that it may have been true, it 
made party responsibility for the dele¬ 
gates so elected nothing but a farce. 

The table below shows the total 
Republican and Democratic vote in 
both primary and election and the 
percentage of the whole primary and 
final election vote cast by Republican 
and Democratic voters. 

A survey of these figures shows that 
in every election save the exceptional 
one of 1912, there was a much larger 
percentage of the Republican vote in 
the primaries than in the election, while 
just the reverse was true of the Demo¬ 
crats, particularly since 1914 during 
which period the percentage of Demo¬ 
cratic votes in the election was gener- 


Year 

Republican Vote 
in Primary 

Democratic Vote 
in Primary 

Republican Vote 
in Election 

Democratic Vote 
in Election 

Total 
Repub¬ 
lican Vote 

Percent¬ 
age of 
Total 
Primary 
Vote of 
All Par¬ 
ties 

Total 
Demo¬ 
cratic Vote 

Percent¬ 
age of 
Total 
Primary 
Vote of 
All Par¬ 
ties 

Total 
Republi¬ 
can Vote 

Percent¬ 
age of 
Total 
Vote of 
All Par¬ 
ties 

Total 
Demo¬ 
cratic Vote 

Percent¬ 
age of 
Total 
Vote of 
All Par¬ 
ties 

1906. 

170,526 

82 

29,842 

14 

183,558 

57 

103,311 

32 

1908. 

159,273 

77 

41,114 

19 

242,935 

54 

165,977 

36 

1910. 

190,967 

75 

48,270 

18 

161,619 

50 

110,442 

34 

1912. 

81,771 

44 

85,226 

46 

179,360 

45 

167,316 

42 

1914. 

124,461 

58 

72,962 

34 

140,787 

43 

119,509 

36 

1916. 

172,386 

76 

40,124 

17 

227,896 

52 

164,633 

38 

1918. 

192,145 

78 

28,340 

11 

155,799 

47 

112,576 

33 

1920. 

368,263 

86 

22,435 

5 

366,247 

53 

247,746 

35 

1922. 

500,620 

92 

19,108 

3 

367,929 

76 

51,061 

10 


8 Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.13. 




































52 


The Annals of the American Academy 


ally several times as large as it was 
in the primaries. Does this show that 
Democrats voted in the Republican 
primaries and then returned to their 
own party in the election? Or does it 
merely indicate that a larger percentage 
of Republicans than Democrats were 
interested in the primaries, there 
generally not having been such dra¬ 
matic contests in the Democratic pri¬ 
maries, and that a larger percentage of 
the Democrats than Republicans voted 
in the elections? There is no dis¬ 
coverable reason why the latter should 
be true. It would seem, therefore, 
that the most natural explanation is 
that many Democrats voted in the 
Republican primaries. While by no 
means conclusive, figures and reasoning 
seem to point definitely in that direc¬ 
tion. To just the extent that members 
of one party can and do participate 
in the primaries of the other, it is ob¬ 
vious that effective party responsibility 
cannot exist. 

Compromise Impossible Under 
Direct Primary 

The final argument regarding the 
evil effects of the direct primary law 
upon party responsibility is that ef¬ 
fective party-government requires a 
constant process of compromise be¬ 
tween the different elements in the 
party, and that the direct primary 
makes compromise impossible in the 
selection of a ticket, and extremely 
difficult in the formulation of party 
platforms. 

There are two reasons why com¬ 
promise is essential in the nomination 
of candidates. The first is that com¬ 
promise is necessary to majority con¬ 
trol within the party, in case there are 
more than two candidates. Under our 
primary law, there have been five 
primaries in the Republican Party 
in which there were more than two 
candidates for governor, and in each 


case the person nominated won by a 
minority vote. In 1910 the winning 
candidate received 43 per cent of the 
primary vote; in 1914, 35 per cent of 
the primary vote; in 1916, 49 per cent 
of the vote; in 1918, 39 per cent of the 
vote; and in 1920, 29 per cent of the 
vote. 9 Moreover, the figures for 1914 
are more significant than they appear 
on their face. The conservatives held 
a state convention and agreed to sup¬ 
port Emanuel L. Philipp for governor, 
and he was the only conservative 
candidate. The LaFollette faction 
w r ere not able to agree and wdiile they 
controlled about 65 per cent of the 
votes, they could not nominate, with 
the result that while two-thirds desired 
a LaFollette candidate, their wfill w r as 
foiled. Under a convention system, 
balloting would have continued, gradu¬ 
ally eliminating the minority candi¬ 
dates, until all the LaFollette delegates 
w r ould have centered upon one candi¬ 
date and the majority would have pre¬ 
vailed. It does not seem either rea¬ 
sonable or possible to hold a party 
responsible for its candidates wdien 
they may be nominated by a minority 
of the members. 

The second reason why compromise 
is essential in the nomination of can¬ 
didates is that unless there is such a 
spirit of accommodation and adjust¬ 
ment, the party wdll be driven upon the 
rocks of factional disaster, and party 
responsibility disappears. In a nomi¬ 
nating convention, the majority, while 
insisting upon a candidate that sup¬ 
ports their views, are generally careful 
to avoid candidates that are so ex¬ 
treme as to tempt the minority to 
bolt the ticket. In this way extreme 
candidates are generally avoided, and 
the coherent unity of the party is 
sustained. Under the primary system, 

9 The law in Wisconsin provides for plurality 
nominations. Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, 
Sec. 5.17. 


Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin 


53 


where there is no chance for confer¬ 
ence, adjustment and compromise, 
but where it is an individual scramble 
for votes, candidates representing the 
opposite extremes have frequently 
been nominated on the ticket. We 
have already seen how candidates of 
opposing factions have been on every 
state ticket since 1906 except in 1922. 
We have seen how the State Central 
Republican Committee has practically 
ceased to function for years because 
quite frequently the factional disputes 
between the committee and some of the 
candidates made united action en¬ 
tirely impossible. However, it is not 
fair to say that the primary law has 
created the factional differences in 
Wisconsin, for they were started before 
the primary measure was adopted. 
The most that can be said is that under 
the primary system there seems no 
hope of working out a definite Republi¬ 
can organization capable of assuming 
and bearing the full responsibility 
for the government, which every domi¬ 
nant party ought to bear. 

It is probable that Senator LaFollette 
will be able to control all departments 
of state government for some time to 
come; but that raises the question 
already discussed above, as to whether 
a personal responsibility really provides 
adequate means for the continuing 
control of government in the interest 
of a permanent and constructive policy. 

Compromise and Party Platforms 

The remaining question for con¬ 
sideration is the effect of the direct 
primary in retarding the forces of 
compromise in the framing of party 
platforms. Under the Wisconsin law 
all the candidates for state offices 
meet on the third Tuesday of Septem¬ 
ber to draw up a platform and elect 
a state central committee. 10 The ques¬ 
tion is presented as to whether such 

10 Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.20. 


a convention is as favorable to a genu¬ 
ine and honest compromise as the old 
party nominating convention. It is 
argued that since these conventions 
are composed of representatives of 
hostile factions, already nominated, 
and frequently representing the more 
extreme representatives of the opposing 
groups, and with none of the general 
spirit of party harmony and tradition 
that found expression in the old nomi¬ 
nating convention, the spirit of mutual 
toleration, adjustment and accommo¬ 
dation finds little opportunity for ex¬ 
pression. The facts seem to justify 
the argument. Again, caution must 
be urged against charging the direct 
primary with entire responsibility for 
factionalism in Wisconsin politics. 
Strong personalities and fundamental 
differences in political conviction have 
played their part. But if a convention 
system had been in vogue, there is 
reason to believe that these differ¬ 
ences might have been mitigated in¬ 
stead of accelerated almost to the point 
of irreconcilable hostility. Regardless 
of where one’s sympathies happen to 
lie in this struggle, it seems clear to 
the author, that the interests of the 
state of Wisconsin would be better 
served if there were a greater spirit 
of mutual toleration and understanding 
between the opposing factions. The 
spirit of irreconcilable factionalism is 
not conducive to the clearest-sighted 
statesmanship, or the most disinter¬ 
ested public service. 

Moreover, it seems likely that had 
the convention system remained in 
force, the contest over conflicting 
political convictions would have found 
its ultimate expression in the readjust¬ 
ment of the lines of cleavage between 
the two major parties, and thus there 
would have been provided adequate 
machinery through which the public 
opinion of the state could have most 
effectively expressed itself. 


54 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Importance of Compromise 

This matter of compromise is a 
matter of prime importance in the 
opinion of the writer. The underlying 
assumption of democratic government 
is the capacity of the people to find 
a common purpose and a common aim 
through the agency of compromise. 
When a people has lost its capacity 
to accomplish that, it has lost its 
capacity for self-government. The 
Irish nation cannot achieve democracy 
until it has learned the genius of com¬ 
promise. Without such a spirit popu¬ 
lar control becomes majority-tyranny. 
Instead of an acquiescing, law-abiding 
minority, there develops a hostile, 
irreconcilable opposition. With a 
population like our own, divided into 
many groups as highly differentiated 
as they are, it is of the utmost im¬ 
portance to preserve and perfect the 
most efficient instruments of honest 
compromise that we have been able 
to produce. Some of the most con¬ 
structive service that political parties 
will be called upon to render, will 
be to frame effective compromises 
between otherwise irreconcilable inter¬ 
ests. This can frequently be better 
done in the secret counsels of the 
party than in the public debates of 
legislative halls. And when so formu¬ 
lated into specific proposals upon 


which a real public opinion is possible, 
they will then be submitted to popular 
approval or rejection. Students of 
the labor problem are agreed that no 
effective compromise solution of specific 
conflicts between capital and labor 
can be effected, save through secret 
negotiations in which only the final 
result is given publicity. The same 
reasoning may occasionally apply to 
compromise measures in the field of 
politics. Whatever be the merits of 
the other phases of the direct primary, 
some method should be devised by 
which party responsibility can be 
preserved and the party’s capacity 
to achieve effective compromises care¬ 
fully safeguarded and secured. 

In conclusion, there seems ample 
justification for the statement that the 
direct primary in Wisconsin has helped 
materially to break down the party 
system with its accompanying theory 
of party responsibility. It has done 
this by taking the functions out of 
the hands of the organization and plac¬ 
ing them in the hands of the people; 
by diverting public attention from 
parties to factions and individuals; 
by permitting outsiders to participate 
in the control of party affairs by means 
of the open primary; and by making 
more difficult the processes of effective 
compromise which are essential to 
party cohesion and solidarity. 


Opinions of Public Men on the Value of the 

Direct Primary 

By William E. Hannan 

Legislative Reference Librarian, New York State Library 


F OR the purpose of arriving at the 
sentiment throughout the country 
upon the subject of the direct primary, 
four questions were submitted to the 
governors of the variotis states, to state 
political leaders in each state, to the ed¬ 
itors of the two leading newspapers of 
opposite political faith in each state 
and to professors of political science in 
certain universities and colleges. The 
questions submitted were as follows: 

1. Is the direct primary, in regard to 
state-wide officers, a success or failure 
in your state? 

2. Would the direct primary be 
strengthened and made more effective 
by the adoption of the short ballot 
principle? 

3. Is the party nominating con¬ 
vention, with delegates thereto chosen 
at a primary, preferable to the direct 
primary? 

4. Is party responsibility, obtained 
through the party nominating conven¬ 
tion, of more value to our system of 
government than the direct primary 
with its great reserve power which the 
people may use if they wish? 

I. Is the Direct Primary a Failure 
or a Success? 

Opinions of Governors 

With respect to this question, replies 
received from the governors of fourteen 
states show ten more or less in favor, 
and four opposed. The following gov¬ 
ernors sent favorable opinions: I homas 
C. McRae of Arkansas, Democrat; 
Henry J. Allen of Kansas, Republican; 
Lee M. Russell of Mississippi, Demo¬ 
crat; Arthur M. Hyde of Illinois, 


Republican; John J. Blaine of Wiscon¬ 
sin, Republican; Robert D. Carey of 
Wyoming, Republican; Davis of Vir¬ 
ginia, Republican; and Albert O. Brown 
of New Hampshire, Republican, who 
takes a rather neutral stand. 

A summary of opinions received 
shows that Democratic sentiment es¬ 
pecially endorses the direct primary. 
Governor Russell of Mississippi, de¬ 
clares it to be “the only safe method.” 
The experience of Nevada is particu¬ 
larly illuminating. This state, in 
1909, adopted the direct primary and 
in 1915 went back to the party conven¬ 
tion. Governor Boyle, a Democrat, 
says that the first convention held in 
1916 so completely disgusted the people 
of Nevada that an immediate demand 
at once arose for the restoration of the 
direct primary. This was done in 1917. 

Other governors declare that the 
type of official produced by the direct 
primary is satisfactory, and that its 
favor with the citizens is indicated by 
the opinion that the great majority of 
voters consider it a better method of 
choosing candidates than the conven¬ 
tion system. It has also done much 
toward lessening the power of powerful 
political machines, and has rendered a 
satisfactory measure of service to the 
state. 

Four of the governors take a negative 
stand on the direct primary. They 
are: Oliver T. Shoup of Colorado, 
Republican; Everett J. Lake of 
Connecticut, Republican; Samuel R. 
McKelvie of Nebraska, Republican; 
and Charles R. Mabey of Utah, Repub¬ 
lican. 


56 


The Annals of the American Academy 


These men cite several significant 
facts as reasons why the primary is not 
satisfactory. First, it is cumbersome 
and expensive, and has failed to im¬ 
prove the calibre of the candidates. 
Furthermore, the system makes it 
impossible for any but a wealthy man 
to seek the higher state offices. That 
it is not practical, is indicated by the 
fact that the voter fails to give proper 
consideration to the selection of able 
minor officials, his attention being 
entirely absorbed by the major offices. 

Opinions of Chairmen of Political 
Parties 

Coming now to the opinions received 
from chairmen of the state central 
committees of the two dominant po¬ 
litical parties, one finds that the bulk 
of sentiment holds the primary to be 
a failure. Opposed to the primary are 
M. H. McCalla, chairman of the Demo¬ 
cratic State Central Committee of 
Arizona; Arthur Lyman, chairman of 
the Democratic State Central Com¬ 
mittee of Massachusetts; J. E. Van- 
Home, executive secretary of the New 
Jersey Republican State Committee; 
J. A. Harris, former chairman of the 
Republican State Central Committee 
of Oklahoma; J. N. Fisher, chairman of 
the Democratic State Executive Com¬ 
mittee of Tennessee; Park H. Pollard, 
chairman of the Democratic State 
Central Committee of Vermont; R. F. 
Dunlap, chairman of the Democratic 
State Executive Committee of West 
Virginia and T. Blake Kennedy, chair¬ 
man of the Republican State Central 
Committee of Wyoming. 

Mr. McCalla of Arizona declares 
that the direct primary often results 

(1) in the nomination of incompetents; 

(2) in the nomination of the entire 
ticket from one locality; (3) in the vio¬ 
lation of the principle of majority rule. 
Further expressions of opinion em¬ 
phasize the fact that the direct primary 


is a means of choosing men of doubtful 
integrity and only moderate ability; 
that it destroys party organization and 
encourages bitter campaigns among 
members of the same party. The 
voters, either through ignorance, ir¬ 
responsibility or indifference, are not 
capable of making choices of as intel¬ 
ligent a nature as would be made at a 
nominating convention. Also, it is 
averred that the state-wide primary of¬ 
fers the demagogues the opportunity 
to stir up strife in party ranks and 
gives the unscrupulous newspaper a 
chance to poison the minds of voters 
against the leading candidates thereby 
furnishing campaign thunder for the use 
of the opposition in the regular election. 

Favorable opinions are far in the 
minority. Burt D. Cady, chairman of 
the Republican State Central Com¬ 
mittee of Michigan, says that the 
direct primary applies only to governor 
and lieutenant governor, and has 
proven a success. The other state 
officers are nominated by party con¬ 
vention. Alfred T. Rogers, a member 
of the Republican National Committee 
from Wisconsin, states that the primary 
law has been a great improvement over 
any other method used in that state. 
He believes that it would be impossible . 
to take away from the voters this 
privilege of registering their individual 
choice for nominees. 

Opinions of Newspaper Editors 

The editors of prominent newspapers 
throughout the nation who replied to 
the questionnaire are quite evenly 
divided in sentiment, for and against. 
Those in favor are: Will Owen Jones, 
managing editor of the Nebraska State 
Journal; John H. Kelly, editor of the 
Sioux City Tribune; Harvey E. New- 
branch, editor of the Omaha World 
Herald and the Hon. Josephus Daniels, 
president of the News and Observer of 
North Carolina. 


Opinions of Public Men on the Value of the Direct Primary 57 


Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State 
Journal , favors the direct primary be¬ 
cause it has given the people more con¬ 
trol of state governmental affairs, 
increased the feeling of responsibility 
of office-holders to the people, and has 
broken down powerful political ma¬ 
chines. Mr. Daniels declares it to be a 
partial success. Other expressions of 
opinion point out that the direct pri¬ 
mary is better than the system that it 
displaced, and that its claim to success 
lies in the fact that the voters have a 
greater opportunity to select the can¬ 
didates than formerly. 

Four editors are opposed. They 
are: Samuel S. Sherman, general man¬ 
ager of the Rocky Mountain News and 
the Denver Times; Milo M. Thompson, 
editor of the Idaho Daily Statesman; 
Charles B. Cheney, managing editor 
of the Minneapolis Journal , and Gra¬ 
ham Sanford, managing editor of the 
Reno, Nevada, Evening Gazette. 

These editors who oppose the direct 
primary do so on the ground that the 
majority party is the only one to use it, 
the other parties making back-room 
nominations and centering their efforts 
on the nomination of inferior opposition 
men; that under the system dema¬ 
goguery flourishes and there is little 
chance to locate responsibility. 

Opinions of Professors of Political 
Science 

Of the twelve replies received from 
the professors of political science, seven 
favor the primary. They are: Victor 
J. West of Leland Stanford University; 
Allen Johnson of Yale University; 
P. O. Ray of Northwestern University; 
John A. Fairlie of the University of 
Illinois; Chester J. Maxey of Western 
Reserve University; Frank J. Laube of 
the University of Washington; and the 
professor of political science at Wil¬ 
liams College. 

They take their stand on the ground 


that the direct primary is a decided 
advance over the old convention sys¬ 
tem. The officials secured under the 
direct primary are of as high a type, 
on the average, as under the old system, 
and in general they are of a better type 
because they are more social-minded, 
more representative of the people, and 
less representative of the special in¬ 
terests. 

Argument in opposition is offered by 
Professor Robert Phillips of Purdue 
University. He holds that in Indiana 
the primary is less popular in its ap¬ 
plication to local offices than to state¬ 
wide offices. It is further unpopular 
because of the great expense entailed, 
thus barring the man without means. 
Professor Arnold B: Hall of the Univer¬ 
sity of Wisconsin, gives several reasons 
why he objects to the direct primary: 
(1) It has broken down party respon¬ 
sibility and developed factionalism, 
due to the open primary; (2) it has 
resulted in minority control; (3) it has 
tremendously increased the expense of 
candidates. Karl F. Geiser of Oberlin 
College, and Isador Loeb of the Univer¬ 
sity of Missouri, are also opposed to the 
direct primary. 

II. Would the Primary Be Bene¬ 
fited by the Adoption of the 
Short Ballot? 

Opinions of Governors 

Of the ten governors replying to this 
question, six give an affirmative and 
four a negative answer. The affirma¬ 
tive replies are from Governors Shoup 
of Colorado; Allen of Kansas; Hyde of 
Missouri; Dixon of Montana; McKel- 
vie of Nebraska; and Boyle of Nevada. 

Governor Allen believes that the 
short ballot would strengthen the pri¬ 
mary. He states that the people will 
not take the trouble to become ac¬ 
quainted with the capacities of the 
candidates for the subordinate posi¬ 
tions, and the places requiring technical 


58 


The Annals of the American Academy 


capacity can be filled better by the 
appointive system. Other expressions 
of opinion favor the short ballot for the 
following reasons: Good government 
comes from concentrating administra¬ 
tive power in the hands of the fewest 
number of persons possible, with the 
result that responsibility can be di¬ 
rectly located; also, as a business 
proposition, the governor, charged 
with the duty of efficiently administer¬ 
ing state affairs, should have the right 
to surround himself with heads of the 
coordinated departments, who would 
effectively cooperate w T ith him in what¬ 
ever administrative policy he might 
adopt. 

The negative answers are given by 
Governors McRae of Arkansas; Mabey 
of Utah; Davis of Virginia; and Blaine 
of Wisconsin. Governor Davis feels 
that the short ballot is a questionable 
remedy for the ignorance of the voters 
in that it w r ould slightly, but not 
materially, strengthen the direct pri¬ 
mary. Others suggest the primary 
ballot is shorter than the election bal¬ 
lot, and therefore its adoption would 
not necessarily have a good effect. 

Opinions of Chairmen of Political 
Parties 

Five of these officers oppose the 
short ballot. They are: Mr. Cady, 
Republican; Mr. McCloud, Repub¬ 
lican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. 
Pollard, Democrat; and Mr. Kennedy, 
Republican. 

These men give as reasons for their 
opposition to the adoption of the short 
ballot the fact that to give to the 
chief executive power to appoint sub¬ 
ordinate state officers, is contrary to 
the spirit of our government and 
wmuld further tend to destroy our 
organization; and also that there is 
difficulty in arousing the interest of the 
voters in the primary as well as the 
regular election, and there is no guar¬ 


antee that the short ballot w'ould 
arouse this increased interest. 

Those favoring the short ballot in¬ 
clude Mr. VanHorne, Republican; Mr. 
Hurley, Democrat; and Mr. Dunlap, 
Democrat. 

Mr. Hurley says that the short ballot 
principle would simplify the task of 
voting and make it much easier to 
locate responsibility, thus enabling the 
discerning voter to act more intel¬ 
ligently in the selection of candidates. 
Mr. VanHorne cites the case of New r 
Jersey, in which state the governor is 
the only officer elected by state-wide 
vote, the minor state officers being 
appointed. 

Opinions of Newspaper Editors 

Of the eight editors replying to this 
question, seven favor the short ballot, 
and one opposes it. The editors who 
sent favorable opinions include Mr. 
Sherman of the Rocky Mountain News 
and Denver Times; Mr. Thompson of 
the Idaho Daily Statesman; Mr. Kelly 
of the Sioux City Tribune; Mr. Cheney 
of the Minneapolis Journal; Mr. Jones 
of the Nebraska State Journal; Mr. 
Newffiranch of the Omaha World-IIerald 
and Mr. Daniels of the News Observer. 

The reasons given by the above men 
for their favorable opinion may be 
summarized as follows: Inasmuch as 
there would be few^er candidates to 
consider, there would be less confusion 
due to the injection of many personal 
fights. Not one voter in a thousand 
know r s who all of the candidates are or 
wdiat principles they represent, and he 
therefore votes the greater part of his 
choices in absolute ignorance. The 
people can think of only one thing at a 
time, and when they are called upon to 
elect a score of officers the miner 
positions become merely a “grab-bag.” 

The lone negative amongst the edi¬ 
tors is Mr. Sanford of the Reno Evening 
Gazette. He states that the short ballot 


Opinions of Public Men on the Value of the Direct Primary 59 


would not help the primary in Nevada 
because the population is small, the 
elective state officers not many and the 
candidates are personally known to a 
very large number of the electors. 

Opinions of Professors of Political 
Science 

In answer to this question, eight 
favor the short ballot, and three oppose 
it. Those who are in favor are: Pro¬ 
fessors West, Ray, Fairlie, Loeb, 
Maxey, Geiser, Hall, and Laube. Pro¬ 
fessor Maxey maintains that the direct 
primary will never be effective until we 
eliminate the long ballot which causes 
blind voting and is responsible for 
many of the alleged defects of the 
direct primary system. In addition, 
another points out that the short ballot 
would limit the operation of the pri¬ 
mary to those offices where public 
opinion exists and where caprice, 
accident and irresponsible publicity 
would not control. The short ballot 
would permit a more intelligent vote by 
enabling the electorate to concentrate 
on a few political offices. 

Professors Phillips, Haines and the 
professor of political science at Wil¬ 
liams College are in opposition to the 
short ballot. Professor Phillips takes 
a rather neutral stand. He says that 
while the short ballot would probably 
make possible a more centralized, 
responsible and efficient government, 
the same gain might be made by the 
adoption of the short ballot under the 
nominating convention system. The 
short ballot principle, therefore, is not 
an argument for or against the primary. 

III. Is the Party Nominating Con¬ 
vention with Delegates There¬ 
to Chosen at a Primary, Pref¬ 
erable to the Direct Primary ? 

Opinions of Governors 

Eight out of the ten governors 
replying believe the direct primary 
preferable. They are: Governors A1 len 


of Kansas, Russell of Mississippi, Hyde 
of Missouri, Dixon of Montana, McKel- 
vie of Nebraska, Boyle of Nevada, 
Davis of Virginia, Blaine of Wisconsin. 

Governor Hyde of Missouri, declares 
that the direct primary is the people’s 
answer to the abuses of the convention 
system. Other of the governors hold 
the convention less preferable because 
the people are opposed to it on account 
of the fact that it is favored by the 
corporations and money interests and 
because the delegates to the convention 
do not represent their will. Governor 
Blaine states as his reason for favoring 
the direct primary that it is easier to vote 
direct for a candidate than to reach the 
same result through an agent. ’ 

Governor Carey favoring the con¬ 
vention in preference to the direct pri¬ 
mary, believes that under the conven¬ 
tion system the delegates would be 
practically pledged to the candidate, 
the general ticket might be better 
balanced, and the various parts of the 
state better represented. 

Opinions of Chairmen of Political 
Parties 

The various political party chairmen 
are practically unanimous in favoring 
the convention system. Seven of the 
nine replying favor, and two oppose, 
the convention system. The officials 
replying favorably are: Mr. Lynch, 
Democrat; Mr. Lyman, Democrat; Mr. 
Cady, Republican; Mr. McCloud, Re¬ 
publican; Mr. VanHorne, Republican; 
Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. Kennedy, 
Republican. 

Mr. VanHorne, Republican, states 
that, as a newspaper man, he has seen 
the “Boss” defeated under the con¬ 
vention system more times than he 
won. It is further observed that the 
candidates selected by the direct pri¬ 
mary are not of as high an order as 
those selected by the party convention. 
It is believed that the convention plan 
should be used in the nomination of 


60 


The Annals of the American Academy 


minor state officers and the direct pri¬ 
mary in the selection of the chief ex¬ 
ecutive and lieutenant-governor. The 
fact that the direct primary adds 
additional expense to an already over¬ 
burdened political machine is used as 
argument in favor of the convention. 

Mr. Dunlap says that in theory the 
primary is the ideal manner of nomina¬ 
tion, but where there is no enforcement 
of the laws and its penalties are full of 
loopholes, the direct primary becomes 
impotent and but a shadow of what it 
really should be. If there could be 
awakened a determination to enforce 
our election laws, then the direct pri¬ 
mary would be best. 

Opinions of Newspaper Editors 

The opinion of the editors is a tie 
upon this question. The following 
editors are in favor of the convention: 
Mr. Sherman of the Rocky Mountain 
News and Denver Times, Mr. Thomp¬ 
son of the Idaho Daily Statesman, Mr. 
Cheney of the Minneapolis Journal 
and Mr. Sanford of the Reno Evening 
Gazette . 

According to Mr. Thompson, under 
the convention plan, the undesirable 
candidates can be eliminated for the 
good of the ticket, and, further, there 
are men who would accept a conven¬ 
tion nomination who would have noth¬ 
ing to do with a direct primary. He 
also believes that a platform cannot be 
brought into harmony with candidates 
and candidates into harmony with 
the platform except by a convention. 
Opinion is also expressed that under 
the convention system it is possible to 
eliminate personal antagonisms and 
bring about harmony and draft a good 
man for office. In the convention the 
party’s policy can be determined, 
instead of leaving the task to an indi¬ 
vidual, as in the case of the primary. 
The result would be that the people 
of the state would vote intelligently on 
issues and locate responsibility. 


The fear of control through combina¬ 
tions is given as a reason wdiy the direct 
primary is preferable to the convention. 
The Hon. Josephus Daniels of the 
News and Observer of North Carolina, 
believes that the direct primary gives a 
better chance to the people than the 
state convention. He holds that the 
primary fails only v r hen the people 
lack interest, or when the party ma¬ 
chine is so powerful that the people feel 
that there is no opportunity to win 
against the bosses. 

Opinions of Professors of Political 
Science 

The instructors in the science of 
government by a majority of one favor 
the party nominating convention as 
against the direct primary. Professor 
Phillips favors the former, as does 
the professor of political science at 
Williams College, Professor Loeb of 
the University of Missouri, Professor 
Maxey of Western Reserve University, 
Professor Geiser of Oberlin College, 
Professor Hall of the University of 
Wisconsin. 

Professor Hall says that in his 
judgment the convention plan is de¬ 
cidedly preferable because: (1) It pro¬ 
vides for majority control; (2) it makes 
for party solidarity and responsibility; 
(3) it places a premium upon leadership 
of the party, rather than upon irre¬ 
sponsible newspapers, and the caprice 
of a popular election where no public 
opinion can exist. He holds that many 
excellent candidates have been chosen 
upon the advice of party leaders, who 
never would have been candidates 
under the primary system. Professor 
Geiser of Oberlin College, is inclined to 
favor the convention plan if the long 
ballot is retained, but only if it is. 

Five professors favor the direct pri¬ 
mary. They are: Professors West of 
Leland Stanford University, Ray of 
Northwestern University, Fairlie of 
the University of Illinois, Haines of the 


Opinions of Public Men on the Value of the Direct Primary 61 


University of Texas and Laube of the 
University of Washington. 

Opinion is expressed that if the old 
convention system was restored, fewer 
voters would take the trouble to go to 
the polls to choose delegates than go 
now to the primaries to directly nomi¬ 
nate their candidates. People must 
not be allowed to forget the rottenness 
of the old convention system which is 
now being lugged forward by the 
political machinists as a substitute for 
the direct primary. It is pointed out 
that the party nominating convention 
has notoriously delivered the state 
into hands of special interests and 
their party agents. 

IV. Is Party Responsibility Ob¬ 
tained by Means of the Party 
Nominating Convention of 
More Value to Our System of 
Government Than the Direct 
Primary with Its Great Re¬ 
serve Power? 

Opinions of Governors 

A majority of the governors replying 
to this question consider the direct 
primary of more value than the party 
convention. The seven who oppose 
the convention are: Governors Russell, 
Dixon, McKelvie, Boyle, Davis, Blaine 
and Carey. 

They suggest the following reasons 
why the primary is preferable: The 
state’s business is not the party’s busi¬ 
ness, it is the people’s business; it is 
not possible to have representative 
government through any method other 
than the direct primary, and if the 
method of making nominations under 
the direct primary is hedged about 
with the proper safeguards, it is still 
possible to maintain party respon¬ 
sibility, and yet put the work of 
nominating candidates more directly 
in the hands of the people. 

Governor Shoup of Colorado states 
that the direct primary has failed of its 


purpose, and should be revised or 
modified. He favors the convention 
system. Governor Mabey of Utah is 
the other who favors the convention as 
against the direct primary. 

Opinions of Chairmen of Political 
Parties 

' Of the eleven chairmen of political 
parties giving their opinions upon this 
question, eight favor the nominating 
convention and three oppose it. The 
following favor the convention: Mr. 
Lynch, Democrat; Mr. Lyman, Demo¬ 
crat; Mr. Kennedy, Republican; Mr. 
Harris, Republican; Mr. VanHorne, 
Republican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; 
Mr. Pollard, Democrat; and Mr. Dun¬ 
lap, Democrat. 

Mr. Pollard is of the opinion that the 
party, whose tag all the candidates 
bear, can claim no responsibility for 
the action of the candidate under the 
primary law. Mr. Fisher believes 
that the best government is composed 
of two strong political parties, each 
watching the other and each ready to 
go before the people and lay bare the 
record of each, therefore allowing the 
people to choose the party giving them 
the best government. He says that 
the difficulty with the direct primary 
in Tennessee is that many people will 
not vote so as to be free to vote as they 
desire in the regular election. This 
tends to destroy party unity and when 
party unity is destroyed, the govern¬ 
ment has been struck a tremen¬ 
dous blow. Opinion is also expressed 
that the party responsibility obtained 
through the party nominating conven¬ 
tion is more valuable to our system of 
government than the primary with its 
reserve powder. 

Three chairmen oppose the nominat¬ 
ing convention. They are Mr. Cady, 
Republican; Mr. Hurley, Democrat; 
and Mr. Rogers, Republican. It is 
maintained that party responsibility is 


62 


The Annals of the American Academy 


secondary to the responsibility of the 
officer to his constituency, and that 
party responsibility is as often avoided 
through the convention as it is assumed. 
Most of the trouble from political evils 
is due to the general inertia on the part 
of the public and to the great energy 
and astuteness on the part of the pro¬ 
fessional politician. 

Opinions of Newspaper Editors 

Four of the editors favor party 
responsibility of the convention, and 
three favor the direct primary. Mr. 
Sherman of the Rocky Mountain News 
and Denver Times advocates a combina¬ 
tion of party responsibility with the 
initiative power of the direct primary. 
He holds that the worst feature of the 
primary is the fact that the voters are 
so poorly informed regarding the can¬ 
didates. The result is that we often 
get worse candidates than we would 
through the old party convention. 
The convention is also held favorably 
by Mr. Thompson of the Idaho States¬ 
man, Mr. Cheney of the Minneapolis 
Journal and Mr. Sanford of the Reno 
Evening Gazette. It is maintained that 
party responsibility is much to be 
desired, and that through the primary 
system the public loses the services of 
men who are unwilling to offer them¬ 
selves as voluntary candidates, but 
whose candidacy could be obtained 
through convention nominations. Mr. 
Sanford believes that a sense of respon¬ 
sibility prevails in a convention which 
is not to be found to the same extent 
in a direct primary. 

Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State 
Journal, Mr. Newbranch of the Omaha 
World-Herald, and Mr. Kelly of the 
Sioux City Tribune take the opposite 
point of view. Mr. Newbranch main¬ 
tains that popular power is a bigger 
thing than party responsibility. Ac¬ 
cording to Mr. Kelly, party expediency 
always overrules responsibility and 


pledges, and party personal respon¬ 
sibility is not so binding as personal 
responsibility. 

Opinions of Professors of Political 
Science 

Of the eleven instructors in political 
science giving their opinions, eight 
consider the reserve power secured by 
the direct primary of more value than 
party responsibility. Those who favor 
party responsibility through the con¬ 
ventions are, Professors Phillips, Loeb 
and Hall. They hold that the party is 
a specialized institution, and ought to 
take care of the function of nomina¬ 
tions better than the people. Further¬ 
more, any method other than party 
responsibility imposes too many bur¬ 
dens upon the elector, presupposes too 
much continuous interest and observa¬ 
tion of his representatives, and too 
intimate a knowledge of the details of 
the various offices which are now filled 
by popular election. 

Eight of the professors favor the 
reserve power of the direct primary. 
They are: Professors West, Ray, 
Fairlie, Maxey, Geiser, Haines, Laube 
and the professor of political science at 
Williams College. 

Professor Ray believes that the 
party responsibility which went with 
the convention system is a good deal 
exaggerated. The politician realizes 
that the term “Responsibility” is a 
good talking point in trying to “sell” 
again to the public the old convention 
system under which bossism and ma¬ 
chine rule flourished as under no other 
system. The opinion is expressed that 
party responsibility is of less than no 
value where the responsibility does not 
run through the party to the electorate. 
The party nominating system in prac¬ 
tice destroyed the responsibility by 
delivering the agencies of government 
into the hands of political corrup¬ 
tionists. 


Reform of Presidential Nominating Methods 

By P. Orman Ray, Ph.D. 

Professor Political Science, Northwestern University 


T he nomination of presidential 
candidates has given rise to some 
of the most baffling problems in the 
whole field of American government 
and politics—problems which challenge 
the ingenuity of party leaders and 
professional politicians, on the one 
hand, and of disinterested political 
scientists, on the other. Unfortu¬ 
nately, however, little has been at¬ 
tempted^ and still less has been ac¬ 
complished in an endeavor to reach a 
solution which is consistent with 
twentieth century ideals of democracy. 

Haphazard Methods 

Without serious deviation from the 
truth, one may say that our methods 
of selecting presidential candidates, 
like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin, have 
“just grow’d.” Not even in the hey¬ 
day of the old congressional caucus; 
nor later when the delegate convention 
was hailed as the ideal organ for ex¬ 
pressing the vox populi; nor in the last 
dozen years, which have witnessed the 
grafting of the direct primary upon the 
convention system, has there been 
united and sustained effort on the 
part of press, politicians, or publicists, 
to develop a rational method for the 
selection of candidates for the highest 
office within the gift of the Ameri¬ 
can people. Until very recently each 
party has been, and in the main still 
is, a law unto itself in the matter of 
nominating its candidates; and that 
law, as reflected in the rules and pro¬ 
ceedings of the national nominating 
conventions of the major parties, 
has been more largely the result of 
haphazard growth than of a conscious 
or deliberate effort to provide means 


for full and free expression of the senti¬ 
ment of the mass of party voters. 

Ignorance of the Voter 

Popular ignorance and indifference 
regarding presidential nominating proc¬ 
esses are astonishing and would be 
almost incredible were it not for the 
fact that, as things flow are, the ordi¬ 
nary voter’s influence in the winnowing 
of the aspirants for the presidential 
nomination is almost nil. Certainly, 
taking the country by and large, it 
can scarcely be gainsaid that Mr. 
Average Voter has practically no 
direct influence in determining the 
presidential and vice-presidential nom¬ 
inees of his party. That is all done 
for him by an extra-legal and irre¬ 
sponsible national convention com¬ 
posed of delegates who are personally 
unknown to him, for whom he may 
have had no opportunity to vote, 
with whose presidential preferences 
or political views he may be wholly 
unacquainted, and whose organization 
and proceedings in national convention 
are governed by no law, state or na¬ 
tional. As a result the only real in¬ 
fluence which the average voter has in 
the choice of President and Vice- 
President is exercised on presidential 
election day. Even then, all that he 
can do is to indicate his preference 
between the candidates which the 
Democratic and the Republican na¬ 
tional conventions have seen fit to 
submit for his formal approval; or, 
if dissatisfied with these, he may exer¬ 
cise the inestimable privilege of “throw¬ 
ing away” his ballot by voting for 
the candidates of some third party 
whose running probably will not have 


63 


64 


The Annals of the American Academy 


the slightest influence upon the result 
of the election. 

Presidential Primary Laws 

The national convention system, 
however sound in theory, as an em¬ 
bodiment or application of the repre¬ 
sentative principle to the selection of 
party candidates and as supplying a 
certain kind of leadership in party 
affairs, has, nevertheless, in actual 
practice, become thoroughly dis¬ 
credited and is today an object of very 
general suspicion. As a protest against 
the relegation of the electorate to the 
position of a mere ratifying body, 
and as a repudiation of the tacit as¬ 
sumption that although the voters 
are admittedly competent to elect 
their President and Vice-President, 
they are incapable of nominating them 
directly, nearly half of the states have 
enacted during the past twelve years 
what are called presidential primary 
laws. Though varying greatly in de¬ 
tails, they all have this in common: 
they are attempts, crude to be sure 
but on the whole sincere, to give the 
rank and file of party voters a more 
direct voice in naming presidential 
candidates than they have previously 
enjoyed. Underlying all the presi¬ 
dential primary laws are two definite 
principles: first, that delegates to a 
national convention shall be elected 
as directly as possible by the voters; 
and, second, that the voters shall be 
given an opportunity, as directly as 
possible, to impress upon the delegates 
their choice for presidential candidates. 

Many supporters of the national 
convention system who concede the 
desirability of a more direct method of 
choosing delegates than has prevailed 
generally in the past, nevertheless 
are unalterably opposed to the presi¬ 
dential primary because, as they 
claim, the people are incapable of 
choosing wisely among the various 


presidential aspirants; and because 
better selections can be made for them 
by a “deliberative” body, like the 
national convention, representing all 
parts of the country. 

To this contention advocates of the 
presidential primary reply that the 
people are rather more likely to choose 
wisely their candidates for President 
and Vice-President than their candi¬ 
dates for the less conspicuous state, 
county, or local offices, to which the 
direct primary method is very gener¬ 
ally applied. Indeed, so runs the 
argument, “there is no other political 
office which the people watch as 
closely as they do the contest for the 
first place on the national tickets of 
the great political parties every four 
years; the result is that in no other 
phase of political activity is the average 
voter better qualified than he is to 
choose candidates for President of 
the United States .” 1 The voters, 
to be sure, may not always choose 
wisely their candidates for President 
and Vice-President, any more than 
they always make wise selections for 
state and local offices. But those 
who claim the presidential primary is 
sound in principle, insist that it is 
better that the people should make 
their own mistakes than that they 
should be required to endure the 
mistakes which a handful of convention 
manipulators may make for them. 
They reiterate that if the voters can 
be trusted to choose between candidates 
for office, they can be trusted to choose 
between candidates for nomination. 
“Grant the blunders and confess the 
disappointments, the true question is 
whether the presidential primary prop¬ 
erly safeguarded, is not better fitted 
than the old way to satisfy the people 
that their wishes are respected in the 
election of their rulers. To create 
such a feeling of satisfaction is one 

1 Outlook , C , 164 (1912). 


Reform of Presidential Nominating Methods 65 


of the great ends of democratic govern¬ 
ment.” 

Variations in Primary Laws 

In order to enhance the influence 
of the rank and file of the party, which 
is the immediate objective of the 
opponents or critics of the old conven¬ 
tion system, several different methods 
are set forth in the presidential primary 
laws which have been enacted since 
1910. In some states the laws merely 
require that all delegates to the national 
conventions be elected directly by 
the party voters, instead of indirectly 
in districtjDr state conventions, over 
which the ordinary voter has been 
able in the past to exert little or no 
direct influence. Standing alone, such 
requirements of course give the voters 
practically no more direct voice in 
naming candidates than they had 
previously. Still less direct influence 
is granted in those states which do 
not require the election of delegates in 
a direct primary but leave it optional 
with the state party committees to 
adopt the direct primary or adhere 
to the older convention method of 
choosing delegates. Another group 
of states, in order to give the voter 
some idea respecting the presidential 
preferences of those who are seeking 
election as delegates to the national 
convention, permit such candidates to 
indicate on the primary ballot their 
preference, or lack of preference, 
among the several aspirants for the 
presidential nomination of their party. 
A fourth group of states have gone 
much further in their efforts to enable 
the desires of the rank and file to become 
articulate. Not satisfied with giving 
the party voters an indirect opportunity 
to express their own preferences, these 
states permit the voters both to choose 
delegates directly and to record directly 
their preferences as between the several 
presidential aspirants; and have at- 
6 


tempted, usually with disappointing 
results, to make the outcome of such 
a presidential preference vote binding 
upon the district delegates or upon 
the delegates-at-large or upon both. 

Recent Results Disappointing 

Any criticism of these presidential 
primary laws must begin by admitting 
that the new system at least seemed 
to promise to afford some real improve¬ 
ment upon the old. Whatever de¬ 
fects may have developed, and they 
are numerous, most of these laws at 
least compel a fight in the open; from 
the very start candidates and their 
supporters are under public observa¬ 
tion, so that “gumshoe stalking of 
delegates” and the secret buying of 
convention votes are at all events made 
more difficult. 

Conceding this, as well as the sound¬ 
ness of the principle upon which the 
presidential primary system is based, 
one nevertheless is compelled to admit 
in all candor that it proved thoroughly 
disappointing in the campaigns of 1916 
and 1920. Indeed, in the pre-con¬ 
vention contest of 1916, the circum¬ 
stances were such as to render the 
presidential primary next to useless. 
In the Democratic Party there was 
no contest whatever: President Wil¬ 
son’s renomination was a foregone 
conclusion. On the Republican side, 
due consideration of the proprieties 
prevented the submission of Justice 
Hughes’ name in a primary contest; 
and Colonel Roosevelt had forbidden 
any primary contest to be made in his 
behalf. Other presidential possibilities 
had only a local and relatively insig¬ 
nificant following, so that the primary 
voting was reduced to complimentary 
expressions for “favorite sons,” no one 
of whom developed any real strength 
outside his own state. The presiden¬ 
tial primary thus gave no aid and 
pointed to no conclusion in the nomi- 


The Annals of the American Academy 


66 

nation of presidential candidates that 
year. Scarcely more can be said for it 
in the pre-convention canvass of 1920; 
and today, mention of the subject 
evokes but slight interest and still 
less enthusiasm among laymen and 
politicians alike. Despite these pri¬ 
mary laws, the national conventions 
continue to be a law unto themselves 
and to have the last word respecting 
the choice of nominees. 

The experiences of the last three 
presidential campaigns thus appear 
to justify the widely held opinion that 
the presidential primary is not likely 
to be of real value, so far as the direct 
choice of presidential candidates is 
concerned, except at a time when 
there is a real contest which grips the 
rank and file of the party; or when 
there is a single issue, or a limited 
number of absorbing issues, together 
with candidates big enough to fill 
the horizon of the popular mind. 
Under any other conditions, that is to 
say, under normal conditions, it may 
well be doubted whether a presidential 
primary, operating under widely di¬ 
verse state laws, will ever give the rank 
and file of party members that in¬ 
creased weight and influence in select¬ 
ing presidential candidates which the 
early advocates of the system con¬ 
fidently predicted. 

Reasons for Failure 

How are we to account for these 
disappointing results in practice, of a 
system which, in theory, has so much 
to commend it? The explanation is 
to be looked for either in certain 
defects which characterize the existing 
presidential primary system as a 
whole, or in defects which appear in 
one or more of the laws of the several 
states that employ the system. What¬ 
ever may be said against the old con¬ 
vention system, it possessed at least 
the merit of being nation-wide in its 


operations and of securing substantial 
uniformity throughout the country in 
the manner of choosing delegates. 
Our presidential primary laws, on the 
other hand, are as diverse as our divorce 
laws. Not only are they restricted 
to less than one half of the states, but 
they do not operate with uniform 
efficiency even within the range of 
their limited possibilities. Their differ¬ 
ences in important details are so great 
as seriously to impair the value of the 
system as an index of party sentiment. 
Indeed, lack of uniformity, not merely 
in minor details but also in essentials, 
sums up perhaps as well as can be done 
in a single phrase, the salient and 
serious short-comings of state presi¬ 
dential primary laws. 

For example, the time for choosing 
delegates is strung along all the way 
from March to early June; thus lend¬ 
ing encouragement to migratory cam¬ 
paigns from state to state in the interest 
of various aspirants, which have been 
not inaptly likened to the peregrina¬ 
tions of a circus troupe. Lack of 
uniformity likewise appears in the 
way in which delegates are to be gov¬ 
erned by the direct or indirect prefer¬ 
ential vote cast in the primary. Of the 
numerous variations in this particular 
only two need be mentioned here: 
some laws give to the preferential vote 
of the state at large the effect of instruc¬ 
tions binding upon all delegates, thus 
introducing a species of unit rule; 
others permit the preferential vote 
of the congressional district to govern 
the action of the district delegates, 
although the state-wide vote may have 
registered a different popular choice. 
Furthermore, no state has devised a 
satisfactory, or even workable method 
of determining how long and on what 
preliminary questions in the convention 
the delegates must act in accordance 
with the expressed preferences of their 
respective states or districts. Numer- 


Reform of Presidential Nominating Methods 


67 


ous other more or less serious points of 
variation have been catalogued else¬ 
where, 2 but the foregoing are unques¬ 
tionably the most fundamental defects 
of the existing presidential primary 
system, if system it can properly be 
called. And it may be added that 
their elimination, without destroying 
the system itself, presents a problem 
unsurpassed in difficulty by none other 
in the wide range of practical politics. 
And, finally, to defects that are at¬ 
tributable to diversity in primary laws 
should be added the criticism that the 
system is extremely cumbersome and 
inevitably cosily. No man can run 
effectively for the presidential nomina¬ 
tion in all, or even in a considerable 
number of the state primaries without 
the expenditure of large sums of money. 
Granting that this all goes for per¬ 
fectly legitimate purposes, such ex¬ 
penditures none the less, are bound 
to give rise to disquieting rumors and 
suspicions, and thus tend to undermine 
that popular confidence in the primary 
system which is essential for its suc¬ 
cessful operation. 

Proposals for Improvement 

Confronted then on the one hand 
by an unsatisfactory and discredited 
national convention system and on 
the other hand, by an equally faulty 
and distrusted presidential primary 
system, where are we to look for escape 
from what seems to many to be an 
inescapable dilemma? Can these two 
institutions be made to work together 
effectively so as to give clear and 
unmistakable expression to the will 
of the majority, or are they so mutually 
incompatible that one or the other of 
them must go into the discard? 

The debacle of the convention sys- 

2 See F. M. Davenport, “The Failure of the 
Presidential Primary,” Outlook, CXII, 807 
(1916); R. S. Boots, “The Presidential Primary,” 
Nat . Mun. Rev., IX, Supplement, 608-610 (1920). 


tern in 1912 led many people then to 
suppose that its day had passed for¬ 
ever, and to give hearty endorsement 
to President Wilson’s recommendation, 
made the following year, 3 that the 
national convention be radically re¬ 
organized and cease entirely to function 
as a nominating body. If recon¬ 
stituted in accordance with this recom¬ 
mendation, the national convention 
of each party would consist of nom¬ 
inees for vacant seats in the Senate, 
the senators whose terms have not yet 
closed, the national committees, and 
the candidates for the presidency 
themselves; and the sole work of the 
convention would be the adoption 
of the party platform by those persons 
responsible to the people for carrying 
it out. The actual nomination of 
candidates was to be vested in the 
rank and file of the party membership 
and determined in a uniform direct 
primary regulated by national law, 
the enactment of which the President 
urged upon Congress. 

Following this message, a number of 
bills were introduced into Congress 
in 1914, designed to carry out, in 
whole or in part, the President’s 
recommendation. 4 Nothing came of 

them, however, for the movement to 
obtain a national presidential primary 
law soon ran against the stone wall 
of unconstitutionality: no grant of 
power, express, or implied, can be 
found in the Constitution to justify 
Congress in enacting any of the pro¬ 
posed legislation. After this dis¬ 
covery, agitation for a federal presi¬ 
dential primary law subsided; and since 

then, both lay and professional interest 
in the subject seems to have been com¬ 
pletely overshadowed by the World 
War and its aftermath. But with 

3 First Annual Message to Congress, Decem¬ 
ber, 1913. 

4 These bills are summarized in American 
Year Book, 1914, PP- 68-71. 


68 


The Annals of the American Academy 


the campaign of 1924 rapidly drawing 
near, is it not time for a revival of 
discussion of the merits and defects of 
the national convention system, of the 
state presidential primary system, and 
of possible substitutes therefor, in the 
hope that a sufficient public interest 
may be roused to secure a genuine re¬ 
form of our presidential nominating 
procedure in the near future? 

Launching the Reform Movement 

If the major parties and their candi¬ 
dates for national offices are not ready 
to bring forward on their own initiative 
a constructive program of reform, 
perhaps they can be impressed with 
the importance of so doing by means 
of systematic and contructive agitation 
fostered by disinterested non-partisan 
bodies. Why should not the initiative 
in bringing about a dispassionate 
review and analysis of the various 
problems involved in the selection of 
presidential candidates and in starting 
agitation for reform be assumed by 
such organizations as the Academy of 
Political and Social Science, the Ameri¬ 
can Political Science Association, the 
National Municipal League, the 
National League of Women Voters, 
and perhaps other non-partisan groups? 
Can any good reason be advanced 
against the appointment by each of 
these organizations of collaborating 
committees to make an intensive study 
of the problems involved in this re¬ 
form movement; to enlist the active 
interest and cooperation of party 
leaders; to outline desirable and prom¬ 
ising lines of procedure for the achieve¬ 
ment of thoroughgoing reforms; to 
rouse public interest and assist in 
creating an intelligent public opinion; 
and to formulate drafts of constitu¬ 
tional amendments and legislative 
measures which, serving as starting 
points, may eventually lead to real 
and important and permanent im¬ 


provements?- Perhaps a national con¬ 
ference on the reform of presidential 
nominating methods might be called 
by joint action of such committees. 
The present writer is unwilling to be¬ 
lieve that the difficult problems re¬ 
ferred to in the preceding pages are 
beyond the possibility of solution 
within the lifetime of most men and 
women now living, or that the in¬ 
genuity and resourcefulness of American 
political scientists and party leaders 
are bankrupt or even exhausted. 

Separate State Action or Federal 
Constitutional Amendment 

Those w T ho believe that the presi¬ 
dential primary has not been given a 
fair and thorough trial and are there¬ 
fore unwilling to concede that it cannot 
be made to work satisfactorily, are 
urged to organize and to renew agita¬ 
tion for the adoption of a more perfect 
presidential primary system than we 
now have. Their activities may be 
directed toward one or the other of 
two possible objectives, each of which 
is going to be extremely difficult of 
attainment, and for that very reason 
should constitute a stimulating chal¬ 
lenge to those who are dissatisfied 
with things as they are. In the first 
place, a national committee on a 
uniform presidential primary law 
might be organized, which, after thor¬ 
ough study, should draft a “model” 
presidential primary law and seek in 
all legitimate w r ays to secure its enact¬ 
ment state by state . 5 Obviously such 
a committee would function after the 
manner of its prototype, the National 
Child Labor Committee or through the 
Commissioner on Uniform State Laws. 
Its progress will inevitably be slow and 
perhaps discouragingly so; and for 
this reason many supporters of the 

6 See F. W. Dickey, “The Presidential Prefer¬ 
ence Primary,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. % IX, 467-487 
(1915). 


Reform of Presidential Nominating Methods 


69 


presidential primary may feel that it is 
hopeless to expect much relief in the 
near future, if ever, through separate 
albeit uniform state legislation. Such 
persons no doubt will find the alterna¬ 
tive line of action more to their liking; 
namely, an organized movement to 
bring about the adoption of a federal 
constitutional amendment empowering 
Congress to regulate the methods of 
nominating candidates for the presi¬ 
dency and vice-presidency. This sec¬ 
ond line of action, in the opinion of the 
present writer, appears far more likely 
to result in fundamental and per¬ 
manent improvements than can ever 
be expected to follow an attempt to 
secure uniform presidential primary 
laws in forty-eight different states. 
If this view is correct, the friends of 
reform should be rallied and organized 
for a vigorous and sustained and in¬ 
telligent drive to obtain a federal con¬ 
stitutional amendment. There must 
be an impressive demonstration of re¬ 
form sentiment of course, before the 
major parties and their congressional 
candidates will pledge their support 
to the submission of the necessary 
constitutional amendment to the sev¬ 
eral states. But with public sentiment 
sufficiently aroused, parties and candi¬ 
dates will find it expedient to act. 

The proposed amendment should 
be so worded as not to restrict Con¬ 
gress to the choice of any particular 
plan governing presidential nomina¬ 
tions; on the contrary, that body 
should be given unrestricted freedom 
to adopt any system of regulation. 
Agitation for a federal constitutional 
amendment, how r ever, will inevitably 
be accompanied by wide discussion 
of possible lines of legislation which 
Congress might adopt in acting under 
the broad grant of power just indicated. 
Here, of course, sharp differences of 
opinion are certain to develop, as in 
the case of other important questions 


of public policy. Some will advocate 
the direct popular nomination of 
presidential candidates and the radical 
reorganization, perhaps the virtual 
abandonment, of the national con¬ 
vention, substantially along the lines 
recommended by President Wilson. 
Others will be content merely to pro¬ 
vide for the direct election of delegates 
to national conventions in a uniform 
manner on a uniform day throughout 
the country, for a more equitable basis 
of representation in those bodies, 
and for legal regulation of their pro¬ 
cedure, especially in the case of con¬ 
testing delegations; but, in all other 
essential respects, they would prefer 
to leave the present national conven¬ 
tion system unchanged. Between 
these two extremes, numerous other 
plans are certain to be advanced in 
one quarter or another. 

The plan favored by the present 
writer falls in this middle class. He is 
fully aware of the shortcomings, the 
sins of omission and commission 
of the national convention; neverthe¬ 
less, he finds it hard to believe that, 
in a country three thousand miles 
wide and having more than fifty million 
potential voters who represent the 
most diverse economic, social, and 
political interests, we can afford to 
abolish, or even emasculate, the na¬ 
tional convention and substitute direct 
popular nomination of presidential 
candidates even under a uniform 
national primary law. As Senator 
Davenport of New York has so truly 
said: “A leaderless democracy is a 
delusion. The need in a vast country, 
like our own, of a genuinely repre¬ 
sentative national convention to de¬ 
bate and sift out policies and candidates 
is becoming more and not less certain. 
We ought never to give up the na¬ 
tional convention for a leaderless 
national primary,” 


70 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Responsible Convention Leader¬ 
ship 

But if we are not to abandon the 
national convention, its organization 
and procedure must be regulated by 
national law, and it must be made to 
function in such a manner as not to 
defeat or override party sentiment, but 
on the contrary, furnish the open, 
responsible, and official leadership in 
the selection of candidates and de¬ 
termination of party policy which is 
so much needed. Genuinely responsi¬ 
ble leadership on the part of the con¬ 
vention, however, implies that the 
last word in the selection of presi¬ 
dential candidates must reside with 
the rank and file of party voters, and 
not with the convention, as at present. 
To insure that this leadership shall 
be a truly responsible leadership, there¬ 
fore, a uniform, nation-wide, direct 
primary is indispensable; but the log¬ 
ical time for holding it is not previous 
to a national convention but subse¬ 
quently. Its function should not be to 
elect delegates and seek to control 
their action in convention by more or 
less futile instructions or preferential 
votes; on the contrary, the sole func¬ 
tion of the primary should be a far 
more important one, namely, to make 
the final choice of candidates for the 
presidency and vice-presidency from 
a list previously selected and submitted 
by the national convention. In other 
words, both national convention and 
presidential primary should be re¬ 
tained, but their relations should be 
exactly reversed. With the final de¬ 
cision as to nominees in the hands of 
the mass of party voters, expressed 
through a nation-wide primary held 
a month or so after the Convention 
has met to sift the various aspirants 
and formulate a platform, the present 
danger of the ultimate control of nom¬ 
inations falling into the hands of con¬ 


vention manipulators would largely 
disappear, and popular confidence in 
the presidential primary—now fast 
waning—would be restored. 

Under such an arrangement, the 
new role of the national convention 
would be restricted to drafting the 
party platform and to the selection 
of not more than five or six names to 
be submitted to the party voters at 
the ensuing primary for final decision. 
The aspirant receiving the highest 
number of votes in the primary would 
thereby become the candidate for 
the presidency, and the one receiving 
the next highest vote (unless he were 
already President or an ex-President) 
should be bound to accept the nomi¬ 
nation for the vice-presidency. Not 
the least of the advantages claimed for 
such a system is that it is almost 
certain to result in the selection of 
vice-presidential candidates of uni¬ 
formly higher grade than has pre¬ 
vailed in most periods of our history. 6 

Space does not permit elaboration 
of the advantages which may reason¬ 
ably be claimed for such a nominating 
method over existing practices; nor 
even outlining the details that should 
be provided for by congressional legis¬ 
lation in order to make such a scheme 
workable, further than to say that 
undoubtedly the composition of the 
national convention needs to be 
changed in order to make it a more 
wieldy, a more deliberative, and a 
more representative body; but the 
precise method- of determining its 
membership becomes of secondary 
importance. If the final decision re¬ 
specting nominations is to be placed 
in the hands of the party electorate, 
there is much to be said in favor of 
limiting the national conventions to 

6 Substantially this plan is set forth in some¬ 
what more detail by H. T. Pulsifer, “The Pig 
and the Primary,” Outlook, CXXVI, 19-21 
(1920). 


Reform of Presidential Nominating Methods 


71 


national committeemen and state cen¬ 
tral committeemen from the several 
states. At any rate, however con¬ 
stituted, voting power in the conven¬ 
tion should obviously be based upon 
party voting strength in the several 
states; and the present illogical ap¬ 
portionment of votes on approximately 
a population basis should be abandoned 
into the discard. 

Sine Qua Non of Reform 

However numerous and however 
diverse may be the plans which are 
brought forward to iimprove our presi¬ 
dential nominating procedure, nothing 
but good can come from the discussions 
and comparisons which they are cer¬ 
tain to provoke; and the writer is 
optimistic enough to believe that 
they are likely to result in something 
far superior to the system with which 
we have been muddling along for 


so many years. The one thing needful 
for all friends of reform to remember 
is that they must avoid becoming 
so closely wedded to their own pet 
reform projects as to lose sight of the 
fact that the first important objective 
is not the enactment of any particular 
one of these plans; indeed their re¬ 
spective merits are, at present, of 
quite secondary importance and will 
remain so for some time to come. 
The principal thing to stress now is 
the need for complete unity and 
harmony and tireless energy, in creat¬ 
ing a public sentiment favorable to a 
federal constitutional amendment, em¬ 
powering Congress to regulate the 
method of nominating candidates for 
President and Vice-President. That 
amendment is the sine qua non for the 
success of any plan of reform, however 
meritorious and however widely sup¬ 
ported. 


Party Platforms in State Politics 

By Ralph S. Boots 

University of Nebraska 


T HE occasional efforts of the courts 
to determine legislative intent 
for the purpose of interpreting some 
obscure enactment are now and then 
amost ludicrous, especially in view 
of certain not unusual procedural 
practices among law-making bodies. 
How much more is the private in¬ 
vestigator prone to err in attempting 
to understand the meaning of a law 
in some distant state with the local 
conditions of which he is quite un¬ 
familiar. It is related that a com¬ 
petent student of political science once 
engaged in conversation a fellow rail¬ 
way-passenger from another section 
of the country and commented on the 
significance of a recent change in the 
organization of a large city. “Oh, we 
did that only to get rid of So-and-so,” 
was the reply. To assure reasonable 
accuracy, at any rate in details, it is 
almost necessary for a writer on the 
law governing parties and party ac¬ 
tivities to confine his observations to 
a field in which he possesses personal 
acquaintance with men and measures, 
and a knowledge of the history of 
local politics. Argument in support 
of this proposition will be superfluous 
to those who are familiar with the 
frequent inadequacy of the indexes 
of the volumes of state statutes, or 
to those who have tried to puzzle 
out the import of a long amending 
clause by comparing it with the original 
act. In the cause of merely learning 
the phraseology of the law, it is un¬ 
fortunate for the investigator and 
others, not only that the rule of a few 
states that “amending bills shall be 
so prepared and printed as to show the 


new matter proposed, old matter to 
be retained, and old matter to be 
omitted from the statutes,” is not 
the rule of all, but also that the same 
rule is not everywhere employed in 
the printing of the statutes. Perhaps 
a lobby of the aggrieved could be 
organized. 

If one were to judge the importance 
attached to the party platform by 
the references to it in the indexes of 
election laws, or even by the space 
devoted to it in such law r s, he would 
conclude that it is a matter of little 
moment. There is reason to believe 
that such a conclusion would be correct. 
We seem to be witnessing the passing 
of the platform. 

It is reported that in reply to a 
recent inquiry from a friend in New 
York who had wired: “Did the in¬ 
dustrial court play any part in the 
recent election results?”, William Allen 
White epitomized the situation in the 
following telegram: “Industrial court 
played important part in election. 
Was vigorously supported in Republi¬ 
can platform and violently denounced 
in Democratic platform and issue 
hotly contested in election. People 
voted for Democratic governor pledged 
to repeal the law, and elected Republi¬ 
can legislature pledged to sustain 
law. Tune in, and when you pick 
up vox populi vox dei wire me col¬ 
lect.” 

Recent Efforts to Regulate 
Platform Content 

Yet there are indications that plat¬ 
forms are not passing without protest, 
and several recent efforts to restore 


72 


Party Platforms in State Politics 


73 


their vitality may be noted. “Re¬ 
store” may, of course, convey an 
unwarranted implication. 

The efforts of the Republicans in 
the national campaign of 1920 may 
hardly be asserted to denote a concern 
over the meaninglessness and in¬ 
adequacy of platforms. They were, 
rather, a bid for popular support on 
the basis of apparent willingness to 
consult the country regarding its 
needs. Probably everyone will agree 
that the net effect of those efforts was 
nil. There is an interesting story 
of the substitution at the' last moment 
of an off-hand paragraph, hurriedly 
penciled by a well-known party leader, 
in lieu of one over which the experts 
on platform had labored long and 
assiduously. The most ambitious plan 
to revive party conflicts on lines of 
principle was no doubt that of the 
Richards law in South Dakota, 1918. 
Local “proposalmen,” for issues and 
candidates, were to select state “pro¬ 
posalmen” who, after deliberation in 
assembly, could submit issues, “para¬ 
mount” and otherwise, to the voters 
at the primary. Proposed candidates 
must sign the proposed issues. A 
system of debates between aspirants 
for the presidential nominations, or 
their proxies, and between candidates 
for gubernatorial nominations and 
nominees, was intended to bring the 
issues home to the voters. In 1921, 
however, these features of the law 
were in the main repealed. 

A bill before the Texas legislature 
in 1919 forbade any political party to 
embody in its state platform a demand 
for specific legislation, unless the sub¬ 
ject should have received a majority 
vote at the primary on its submission 
at the petition of 10 per cent of the 
party voters, and authorized the sub¬ 
mission of questions to the voters by 
petition for the purpose of instructing 
delegates to state apd county con¬ 


ventions, who were to be governed by 
these instructions. This was very 
similar to the provisions of the Terrell 
law of 1908, which seem to have been 
held unconstitutional. 

In Washington, 1919, a bill appeared 
providing that candidates for nomina¬ 
tion might have propositions which 
they had advocated for three years 
submitted on the ballots with their 
candidacies. An elaborate process of 
elimination was designed to reduce the 
number of propositions in case it 
should exceed twenty-one. Further, 
groups of one hundred signers each 
could present ten-word propositions, 
and those receiving one-third of the 
votes cast at the primary, and a plu¬ 
rality, were to be placed on the general 
election ballot, and if similarly ap¬ 
proved at the election, it became the 
paramount duty of the legislature, 
county commission, or city council to 
enact them into a proper and con¬ 
sistent form of law. An act of 1921 
made provision for advisory state 
platform committees to hold public 
hearings during the state conventions, 
which were admonished to make a 
clear and concise statement of the 
party principles and legislative pro¬ 
gram. A prominent Republican of the 
state writes that his party has in 
practice followed a course almost 
identical with the requirements of this 
law. He says further, “Platforms have 
been given careful attention in this 
state. ... In this year’s Republican 
convention two very important planks 
were the subject of extensive debate 
on the floor of the convention, the com¬ 
mittee being sustained on one point 
and reversed on the other. ... I am 
certain no really important bit of 
legislation, that is, one involving a 
change in state policy, has been enacted 
without having been previously pro¬ 
posed in a political platform and sub¬ 
jected to state-wide discussion,” 


74 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Platform Machinery Governed by 
Election Laws 

The election laws of most of the 
states will be found to define the 
formal process by which the party 
platforms are to be drafted and pro¬ 
mulgated. Perhaps a majority of 
such states allow a state convention 
to perform this function, and of this 
majority the greater part provide for 
the election of the delegates to the 
state convention by subordinate con¬ 
ventions, nearly always for the county 
area, and the delegates to these county 
conventions are ordinarily elected at 
the primaries which nominate the 
party candidates. These state con¬ 
ventions are usually numerous bodies, 
often of approximately a thousand 
members, although in Maryland there 
are only 129 and in Arizona 213, the 
latter body being a party council. 
The party council in New Hampshire, 
on the other hand, contains about 800 
members. 

In Nebraska, at the regular primary 
election, delegates are selected to 
the county conventions, and delegates 
are selected by and from the county 
conventions to the state conventions 
which meet in every even year the 
third Tuesday in August, except in 
the years of presidential elections, 
in which they meet the third Tuesday 
in May. The original primary law of 

1907 provided that the county nomi¬ 
nees of each party should select the del¬ 
egates to the state conventions. In 

1908 a Republican convention thus 
constituted refused to endorse the 
principles upon which the successful 
aspirant for the gubernatorial nomina¬ 
tion had conducted his campaign. 
Party leaders disapproved the influ¬ 
ence which the plan gave to the county 
nominees. Also, it was argued that 
the party should formulate its program 
before the primary for the guidance 


of the aspirants for party nomina¬ 
tions. So the old caucus and con¬ 
vention system of party government, 
pre-primary, was reestablished but 
forbidden to take any action regarding 
nominees. An act of 1919 established 
the present arrangement as described 
above, while an act of 1921, rejected at 
a referendum this year, restored the 
ante-primary caucus and convention. 
The considerations back of these later 
changes involved the nomination of 
minor state officers by convention and 
the recommendation of aspirants to 
the primary voters rather than the 
merits of pre-primary or post-primary 
platform making. Likewise in Michi¬ 
gan, delegates to the state conventions 
which formulate the platforms, which 
strangely the election laws seem not to 
mention, (and nominate minor state 
officers) are elected at county conven¬ 
tions. The same rule holds in Iowa, 
and since 1921, in Minnesota, where 
the convention exercises the function 
also of proposing primary aspirants. 
In Idaho the members of county 
committees, elected from precincts, 
choose the delegates to the state con¬ 
vention which here possesses nomina¬ 
tion powers. Nominees for county 
offices may adopt principles if they 
wish. In Illinois also the county con¬ 
vention consists of the county com¬ 
mitteemen and sends delegates to the 
state convention. In North Dakota 
the state committee, chosen by county 
committeemen, makes the platform. 
Indiana seems to require the election 
of delegates to the state convention 
directly by the primary voters. This 
is true of New York, where the as¬ 
sembly district is the unit of repre¬ 
sentation, and of Ohio. In a number 
of these states the names of aspirants 
for the position of delegate do not 
appear on the primary ballot but may 
be written in. Nevada in 1920 placed 
the state convention before the pri- 


Party Platforms in State Politics 


75 


mary. Maine leaves the basis of 
representation, time, place, and call 
for the state convention in the hands of 
the state committee, as does Washing¬ 
ton, where the committee could ap¬ 
parently constitute itself the platform 
agency. In practice the Democrats 
have elected their delegates in county 
mass conventions and this year they 
adopted a still broader plan of recogniz¬ 
ing any person who appeared at the 
state convention as a delegate, and as¬ 
signed him to the proper county, 
which was given a proportionate vote, 
the strength of which in thfe convention 
he did not affect. 

Primary Nominees Constitute 
Platform Authority 

In many states the nominees of 
the primary,’ associated usually with 
a larger or smaller group of party 
officials, constitute the platform au¬ 
thority. In Wisconsin the candi¬ 
dates for state offices and for state 
senate and assembly nominated by 
each party at the primary, and the 
holding senators whose term extends 
beyond the first Monday of the ensuing 
year, frame the platform. California 
admits also the candidates for con¬ 
gressional office and allows the elec¬ 
tion of delegates from districts to 
which no holdover senator belongs. 
New Hampshire includes ad hoc or 
regular delegates elected at the pri¬ 
mary. Colorado adds the state chair¬ 
man. But there are really three 
platforms in a Colorado campaign. 
The state assembly of each party 
which has power to designate aspirants 
for the various state nominations, 
drafts a platform in general terms 
which most aspirants for nomination 
endorse, in order to secure votes in 
the primary election; then there are 
the personal platforms of the primary 
nominees; and finally the official plat¬ 


form adopted as above stated. 1 The 
party council in Kansas consists of 
the same candidates as in Wisconsin 
and in addition candidates for United 
States senator and representative, 
holding United States senators, the 
national committeeman, and the chair¬ 
men of the county committees. In 
Kansas also, at least in presidential 
years, it seems that a preliminary 
convention, unofficial, offers sugges¬ 
tions to the party council and per¬ 
haps to the primary voters. This 
year such a Democratic convention 
proposed from one to eight candidates 
for the several state offices. The 
Arizona plan, and also the Montana 
and Missouri plans, are almost identical 
with the Kansas scheme, except for 
the inclusion of the state committee¬ 
men instead of the county chairmen. 
New Jersey includes the state com¬ 
mitteemen but not the candidates 
for national office. Moreover, state 
committeemen are directly elected at 
the primary, one from each county, 
only twenty-one in all. The election 
law compilation of Minnesota for 
1920 still carried the provision for a 
party council which included the 
nominees of each party for the 
state legislature, although non-partisan 
nomination had been provided for 
members of the legislature in 1913. 
What the practice was under this law 
is not known to the writer. 

Although the Maryland law provides 
for a state convention it makes no 
reference to a party platform. Dela¬ 
ware and Connecticut, without the 
direct primary, apparently make no 
mention of a platform agency, nor w~as 
any law on the subject found in the 
Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 
Kentucky, or Arkansas statutes. 

1 Hale Smith, Assistant Professor of Econom¬ 
ics, University of Colorado and Secretary of 
the Democratic State Committee, and to the 
governor-elect. 


76 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Party rules may provide for platforms 
as in Arkansas, where the Democratic 
practice is almost the same as that 
established by law in Nebraska. The 
primary rules of the Democratic Party 
in Virginia refer to conventions but not 
to platforms. The Pennsylvania law 
makes no provision for state conven¬ 
tions nor platforms. Although the 
rules of the Republican Party provide 
for a platform promulgated by the 
state committee, the committee has 
never functioned in this respect. In 
some years the pre-primary platforms 
of the candidates are used and in other 
years the campaign is conducted under 
the national platform. Wyoming and 
Ohio statutes make no provision for 
platforms in “off” years, i.e., other 
than presidential. In Ohio, party 
rules seem to call for a sort of party 
council in these off years. In Mary¬ 
land this year the Republican platform 
was not printed in pamphlet form, 
nor in Wisconsin the Democratic. 
The first state convention in ten years 
was held this year in Alabama. There 
have been no platforms in Tennessee 
since the adoption of the direct pri¬ 
mary. While the direct primary sys¬ 
tem in Oregon does not prohibit 
conventions for the making of plat¬ 
forms, the parties have not made them. 
Aspirants for nomination may submit 
with their designating petitions a 
one-hundred-word statement of princi¬ 
ples and select a twelve-word slogan to 
appear on the primary ballot. 

Varied Forms of Platform 
Authority 

In summary, it may be said that the 
platform authority may be a conven¬ 
tion of delegates elected and meeting 
before the primary, or a convention 
of delegates elected at the primary and 
meeting afterward; the members may 
be directly chosen by the voters or 
indirectly by subsidiary conventions; 


and again these conventions may or 
may not have authority to propose can¬ 
didates for nomination at the primary, 
as in South Dakota or Minnesota; 
or may or may not have power to make 
final nominations as in New York, 
Michigan, Indiana and Idaho; or 
in Connecticut, New Mexico and other 
states which have never adopted the 
direct primary. Or the platform au¬ 
thority may consist of the candidates 
for state office, or these and also the 
candidates for national office, or either 
or both along with a number of party 
officials. 

It is next to impossible to learn 
much about the forces at work back 
of the formal platform-making ma¬ 
chinery attempting to influence or 
determine the platform content. It is 
probable that resolutions committees 
almost everywhere hear proposals from 
individuals and organizations outside 
the party. It is a matter of common 
knowledge that the platform drafts 
are usually prepared by one or more 
individuals before the meeting of 
the resolutions committee or party 
council and that the latter act only as 
more or less critical revising bodies. 
The leaders of the parties probably 
have little trouble as a rule in carrying 
out within limits their ideas. In the 
Democratic Party in Michigan, the 
state chairman through correspondence 
and interviews wfith prominent party 
men, gains a view of the probable 
position of the party on various ques¬ 
tions. His draft of a platform is 
hurriedly and superficially considered 
by a resolutions committee and only 
once in twelve years has an amendment 
to its report been offered on the floor 
of the convention. In Maryland the 
Republican state chairman follows 
much the same plan. In New Jersey 
the state chairman writes the skeleton 
of a platform after two conferences 
with leading citizens, which is elabo- 


Party Platforms in State Politics 


77 


rated after discussion by a larger group 
of men and women the day before the 
meeting of the state convention (coun¬ 
cil?) a committee of which conducts 
a hearing and usually secures the 
adoption of this platform as read to 
the convention just before its adjourn¬ 
ment. The Illinois Republican chair¬ 
man writes that “many interests are 
present at conventions, urging, cajol¬ 
ing and sometimes threatening. . . . 

These may be labor unions, business 
interests, teachers, physicians, fra¬ 
ternal orders, welfare societies and 
other organizations, some of which 
exist only on paper. They usually 
work openly and frankly and do not 
confine themselves to one party.” 

The writer does not recall any pro¬ 
vision of state law designed to prevent 
bribery or improper influence over the 
platform authority. It is conceivable, 
however, that the content of a party 
platform might determine the outcome 
of an election. In Iowa the party 
organization of 3,500 persons is thought 
to be the most important influence 
back of the official machinery. It is 
reported that the New Hampshire 
Republican platform was given to the 
newspapers in its final form twenty- 
four hours before the convention 
(council) met. The Democratic plat¬ 
form committee consisted of an ex- 
United States representative and mem¬ 
ber of the shipping board, five women, 
an ex-governor, an Episcopal rector 
prominent as the friend of striking 
textile workers, a state bank com¬ 
missioner, three farmers, a leading 
corporation lawyer, an official of the 
state federation of labor and a young 
French lawyer regarded as a leader 
among his people. It must be ad¬ 
mitted that such a group, so adequately 
representative of all phases of opinion, 
should be able to draft a platform that 
would look in all directions at the 
same time. Obviously in states where 


the direct primary has been adopted, 
but the party delegate convention 
retained as the platform authority, 
no attempt has been made to gear the 
candidates to the party principles. 
The degree to which the party or¬ 
ganization has in such cases been kept 
in the control of the opponents of 
the primary, even when the members 
of the state committee are elected 
directly at the primary, is remarkable. 
Nevertheless, in such cases the pri¬ 
mary nominees probably exercise great 
influence over the content of the plat¬ 
form. This year in Nebraska the 
Republican candidates for state offices 
met once or twice before the convention 
to consider the position they wished 
the party to take in the campaign. 
The convention was very receptive 
to their suggestions although it is 
said conventions have not always been 
so. 

Effect of Direct Primary on Party 
Platform 

The general effect of the direct pri¬ 
mary on the party platform may be 
considered at this point. In Alabama, 
platforms are said to have fallen into 
a state of innocuous desuetude; in 
Illinois, the delegates are content to 
leave the platform—“superfluous and 
of no consequence”—to the successful 
candidate at the primary; in Arkansas, 
the tendency is for the counties to 
say, “the governor has been nominated 
and we will send his friends to the state 
convention,” which usually adopts 
his recommendations; in Kansas, the 
primary is said to have had no effect 
on the platform, nor in Michigan 
“except to permit candidates to dodge 
responsibility to their party ”; in North 
Dakota, the platform-makers generally 
consult with the nominees and the 
primary has rendered the platform less 
“sacred”; in Arizona the primary has 
beneficially affected platform making 


78 


The Annals of the American Academy 


(the platforms in Arizona this year 
seem to be quite adequately described, 
however, as composed of “glittering 
generalities”); in Maryland the pri¬ 
mary throws the initiative more into 
the party officials’ hands; in Colorado 
it has made at least the preliminary 
platform more general; in Iowa it has 
“somewhat destroyed it,” or has 
caused platforms to be ignored, since 
candidates define their own platforms 
and might as well officially frame 
them, or has caused platforms to 
be superfluous; in Washington plat¬ 
forms are simply “sugar to catch flies” 
(but see above) since as long as the 
candidate refuses to acknowledge party 
control there can be no platforms 
expressing a real conviction upon big 
vital questions. The advisory plan 
in Washington showed a weakness in 
that the state chairmen found difficulty 
in getting together a working com¬ 
mittee and when the advisory plat¬ 
forms reached the resolutions com¬ 
mittees of the conventions, one point 
only was kept in mind, “Will this get 
the voters, and what will the reaction 
be?” The platforms adopted read 
nicely but there was a similarity in all 
the platforms on all the general prin¬ 
ciples enunciated. From New Jersey 
comes the opinion that prior to 1911, 
the date of the adoption of the direct 
primary for state offices, state plat¬ 
forms were largely made for suckers, 
but that now the platforms made by 
candidates have meant very nearly 
what they said and a performance on 
the pledges is always brought forward 
by the party in power as an argument 
for its retention. This correspondent 
and another note that the Republican 
nominee for governor carried through 
the convention his personal platform 
on utilities in spite of some opposition 
from the party leaders. This quota¬ 
tion from an Oregon irreconcilable 
may be worth while: “. . . hence we 


have no organized body in a party 
which may adopt a platform. Each 
self-appointed saviour of the ‘dear 
peepul ’ mixes up his own molasses 
when he becomes a candidate in the 
primary election; nominated, he 
usually runs his own campaign, the 
state committee and county committees 
trailing along behind, endeavoring 
to keep up some semblance of party 
organization; elected, he gives the 
people an individual responsibility 
and not a party responsibility in the 
administration of the affairs of his 
office, and upon the expiration of 
his term becomes the object of a 
cut-throat attack upon the part of 
other members of his so-called party 
who seek to defeat him for renomina¬ 
tion; in office, he builds his own per¬ 
sonal machine, and the regular party 
organization takes the ‘hindmost.’” 
This year a convention of nominees 
and members of state and county com¬ 
mittees was called and a platform 
adopted, all of which was so much 
time wasted because of a fight upon 
the K. K. K. and the school bill. 

The Iowa situation this year was in¬ 
teresting. It seems that the party man¬ 
agers, convinced that Brookhart would 
not receive the 35 per cent of the party 
primary vote required to constitute 
a nomination, devoted their efforts 
to electing delegates to control the 
state convention, which they thought 
would be called upon to nominate. 
Consequently about 80 per cent of 
the convention was opposed to Brook- 
hart, the party nominee. However, 
one writer states that the platform was 
that of a minority of the party, and 
Brookhart the nominee of a majority, 
although he received about 40 per 
cent of the vote and had four or five 
opponents. At any rate, the conven¬ 
tion did not endorse nor denounce 
Brookhart, and softened its platform 
in order to avoid an open party split. 


Party Platforms in State Politics 


79 


Brookhart was opposed by six Iowa 
ex-governors, by which one sees that 
it takes more than the primary ap¬ 
parently to elect men free from control 
by the “interests,” if Brookhart is 
to be believed. One writer says that 
Brookhart accepted the platform, 
another that the people elected an 
extremely radical Republican on a 
conservative platform in preference 
to a conservative Democrat on a 
radical platform. One view is that 
the majority of the people of Iowa 
did not accept Brookhart’s program, 
but that he was elected because he had 
obtained the Republican nomination, 
which is equivalent to an election. 
Here, then, is where party regularity 
in action spelled progressive success. 
No doubt the Non-Partisan Leaguers 
owe something elsewhere to party 
regularity. It seems that 80,000 fewer 
votes were cast for senator than for 
governor, and that the Republican 
governor had a majority of 250,000 
while Brookhart’s was only 150,000. 

Platforms Reduced to 
Insignificance 

Granted that platforms ever meant 
anything, we have succeeded in re¬ 
ducing them in the main to insignif¬ 
icance, although a strong statement 
comes from Arizona, which one cannot 
avoid thinking is either naive or parti¬ 
san: “Nothing was adopted in the 
platform that was not intended in good 
faith to be performed after election 
by the party and officers.” Some 
voices are raised in Washington, New 
Jersey, Iowa, New Hampshire, Con¬ 
necticut and Maryland to the effect 
that platforms carry considerable 
weight in campaigns. From three 
or four states comes the suggestion 
that platforms are of little moment 
when the parties are not evenly 
matched. An Iowa editor believes 
that since labor, farmers, and chambers 


of commerce have become so well 
organized, the platforms have more 
influence than ever before. But ma¬ 
jority opinion holds the platforms in 
slight esteem. “The voters in the 
general elections know nothing of the 
platform and care nothing about it,” 
from Arkansas, matches the following 
from Michigan, “I should venture to 
say that not one voter in a thousand 
in Michigan ever reads a party plat¬ 
form.” 

And is this not encouraging to the 
reformer? Is not an assumption of 
the meaninglessness of platforms and 
of party differences involved in ticket¬ 
splitting when practiced as to party 
candidates within the same field of 
government, and in the movement for 
the Massachusetts ballot? Else what 
consistency among the few hundred 
thousand Californians who in 1916 
voted for a senator to make laws and a 
president to veto them? Or in Nebras¬ 
ka this year, where Kansas’ position 
on the industrial court is duplicated 
on the “code”? If parties have not 
principles, how can voters be expected 
to read platforms which might not 
correspond to principles even if such 
there were? We seem to have fairly 
definitely decided to give up an attempt 
at party government for the present 
in the states,—several of them, at 
least,—as we have done in so many 
cities. If this is so, then any legal 
provision whatever for a common 
presentation of principles or program 
by two or more candidates would seem 
to be folly, whether by convention or 
by party council. 

Several party leaders—from Michi¬ 
gan, Maryland, New York, Washing¬ 
ton, Oregon, North Dakota and Ohio—- 
oppose a candidates’ platform on the 
ground that the “party members” 
or “voters” or “people” should de^ 
termine the principles upon which 
they wish their candidates to stand, 



80 


The Annals of the American Academy 


“Were each candidate to depend 
entirely upon a home-made platform 
the chaotic result is easily imagined.” 
“If candidates elected by the primary 
were allowed to make the platform 
we would have a hodge-podge of 
political opinion and political oppor¬ 
tunism impossible to handle.” It is, 
of course, natural that strong party 
men should find it easy to imagine that 
parties stand for definite principles. 

Character of Platform Drafted 
by Different Methods 

As between platforms made by 
candidates and those made by dele¬ 
gates, do the documents themselves 
show any difference in conciseness, 
consistency and applicability to state 
issues? Certainly a careful reading 
of any particular platform does not 
enable the reader to determine whether 
it is convention-made or council-made. 
Some of the platforms this year most 
seriously lacking in the ordinarily 
conceived desiderata were drafted by 
party councils. Perhaps the plat¬ 
forms in Rhode Island, Connecticut 
and New Mexico—non-primary states 
—most offended academic taste in 
platform criteria, but only to a degree, 
if at all, more than several others. 
It seems a logical course either to try 
to have parties as responsible as they 
may be made for their candidates 
and principles, or to throw parties into 
the discard entirely. Perhaps we are 
doing the latter as rapidly as is wise. 
We can hardly gain anything by 
maintaining a practice which cannot 
be made intelligible even to the 
careful student of politics. If official 
responsibility is to be individual, let 
the confusion caused by the reference 
to parties and the use of party names 
be ended. How, for instance, could 
platforms mean anything where the 
open primary permits voters of all 


so-called parties to mingle freely? 
It may be suggested at this point that 
perhaps the more frequent swings 
from party to party today than in the 
past century, due to what is commonly 
called the independence of the voters, 
may be rather the result of the shift¬ 
ing of parties or the meaninglessness of 
parties. It is a question whether 
primary candidates do not tend to 
sacrifice principle fully as much as 
nominees under the convention system, 
and it is hardly reasonable to expect 
a collection of such nominees to be 
able to give expression to a clean-cut 
position on really controversial ques¬ 
tions. Thus while the candidates 
strive more earnestly to appear to be 
what they think the people want them 
to be, it is doubtful whether another 
supposed function of parties—the pres¬ 
entation of conflicting programs to 
the voters—is not hindered. 

Do the platforms this year indicate 
any differences between the parties 
on state issues? It would seem not. 
One cannot readily tell whether he is 
reading a Democratic or Republican 
platform as far as the expressed at¬ 
titude toward government is concerned. 
“We believe and strongly urge . . . 
that the 18th amendment . . . bothna- 
tional and state, be strictly enforced,” 
runs the Democratic platform of 
Wisconsin, and, “We advocate the 
granting of the use of light wines and 
beer to the people . . . ,” reads that 
of Maryland. The Democratic Party 
in New York and probably in South 
Dakota favors the centralization of 
state government, while in Idaho, 
Nebraska, Michigan, and Missouri 
it opposes such reorganization. Of 
course the record of the party in office 
is the main basis of differing judgment 
among the voters or else economic 
conditions for which neither party 
has had much responsibility. The 
portion of state platforms devoted to 


Party Platforms in State Politics 


81 


matters of national control varies 
widely in the different states and 
parties, with a tendency to constitute 
one-half or one-third of the whole. 
Thus, one-half of the North Dakota, 
Vermont and New Mexico Democratic 
platforms discuss national affairs, in 
Nevada and Wyoming two-thirds, 
and in Maryland four-fifths, with 
hardly a single definite proposal, with 
the exception of that for light wines in 
the last, while in Idaho and Michigan 
there w T as no reference to national 
matters. About one-half of the Wash¬ 
ington, Ohio and Michigan Republican 
platforms were national in character. 
In Colorado, national and state ques¬ 
tions were confused and mingled 
throughout the Republican platform. 
Although some correspondents in New 
Jersey insisted that there were state 
issues involved in the election this 
year, such as a bond issue for roads 
and the regulation of public utilities, 
the best informed person seems to 
have summarized the situation cor¬ 
rectly when he said, ‘‘There was not a 
great deal of difference between the 
parties on this point. The final result 
is to be attributed to a protest against 
prohibition, with dissatisfaction with 
the national administration taking a 
second place.” And in Iowa one 
writer comments, “The contest in 
Iowa concerned largely, if not wholly, 
the personality and political beliefs 
of Smith W. Brookhart.” 

Improvements in Platform-making 

But it may be granted that even if 
the major parties in the states have no 
real principles, they may still be of 
some utility. If so, how may plat¬ 
form-making be improved? The pres¬ 
ent condition is quite unreasonable, 
especially in states where conventions 
remain the platform authority. Con¬ 
tinual danger exists that platforms and 


candidates will not harmonize. Little 
interest is shown in the election of 
delegates. In Michigan, the Demo¬ 
cratic county chairmen usually make 
up lists of delegates and pass the word 
around to the wheelhorses in each 
precinct. A conflict between would- 
be delegates on account of political 
issues is in that state unknown. The 
voters’ interest is in the candidates. 
In North Dakota not ten per cent of 
the voters write in the name of anyone 
for precinct committeeman. Then the 
conventions contain by far too many 
members, and in several states these 
delegates are indirectly elected. Per¬ 
haps the most objectionable feature of 
all, in the case of both conventions and 
councils, is the time at which the 
platform is made. In South Dakota 
the precinct caucuses meet the second 
Tuesday of the preceding November. 
In many states, especially in presiden¬ 
tial years, the state convention or coun¬ 
cil meets in the early summer. It 
would be preferable to have the pri¬ 
mary not more than six or seven weeks 
before the election. This would give 
the platform bodies an opportunity, 
if it would not place them under a 
greater necessity, of speaking to the 
question, for issues seldom take definite 
form until a few weeks before an 
election. It seems desirable that there 
should be some means of ascertaining 
the attitude of the voters at the pri¬ 
mary on the questions on which the 
party is likely to take a position. 
This is done to a degree, it is true, 
through the selection of candidates. 
The writer’s proposal that a group of 
party representatives be permitted 
to propose a set of candidates to the 
primary voters would apparently afford 
a means of more definite decision than 
is offered at present. And if state 
issues are to receive adequate attention 
there is quite as much need for the 
separation of state and national elec- 


7 


82 


The Annals of the American Academy 


tions as for that of state and municipal 
elections. 

The recommendations offered are 
in summary these: state elections, 
if possible, in a year by themselves; 
platform-making not more than six 
weeks before the election, by a body 
greatly restricted in numbers, includ¬ 
ing perhaps several recognized party 
leaders chosen by appointment; and 
the proposal to the primary voters of a 


set of candidates and issues by a 
preliminary meeting of responsible 
party representatives. 

The function of platforms as possible 
indications of public opinion, the eco¬ 
nomic interpretation of platforms, and 
the possible value to a state’s citizenry 
of political and partisan agitation and 
discussion, even when the outcome is 
the result of no real difference in policy, 
cannot be discussed here. 


Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 

By Robert Eugene Cushman, Ph.D. 

Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota 


T HERE is no phase of our recent 
political history which is more 
interesting than the vigorous move¬ 
ment for non-partisanship in state and 
local primaries and elections. It is a 
movement which has been heralded 
with glad acclaim by political reformers 
of many types and in many places; and 
it has been accepted with silent satis¬ 
faction by not a few shrewd politicians 
of the professional variety by reason of 
the advantages which, because of local 
political conditions, it has conferred 
upon them and their organizations. 
While there seems to be no general 
agreement as to the character or value 
of the results which it has accom¬ 
plished, the movement has continued 
to spread, although not without an oc¬ 
casional setback. At the present time, 
non-partisan ballots are being used to 
nominate and elect public officials of 
three rather distinct groups: first, the 
officers of cities, towns, and counties; 
second, both state and local judges; and 
third, in Minnesota, the members of 
the state legislature. In addition, the 
proposal to nominate and elect all state 
officials on ballots without party des¬ 
ignations has been submitted to the 
electors of California and North Da¬ 
kota, and has been in each case rejected 
at the polls. 

It is the purpose of this paper to at¬ 
tempt a survey and appraisal of the non¬ 
partisan primary and election scheme as 
it has been applied to the selection of 
these different types of officials. 

I. Non-Partisan Nominations and 
Elections in Local Government 

A. The Origin of the Movement 

There are a number of reasons why 
the non-partisan ballot should have 


made its first appearance in municipal 
elections and why it should have been 
used in such elections much more ex¬ 
tensively than elsewhere. In the first 
place, party loyalty had not infre¬ 
quently been broken down by the 
numerous independent or reform move¬ 
ments which had characterized munic¬ 
ipal politics. Resentment and protest 
against the exploitation of the city by 
self-seeking and venal political ma¬ 
chines had on numerous occasions 
caused decent citizens of all parties to 
join hands. 1 In other words, the idea 
of non-partisanship received a powerful 
impulse from the general movement for 
political sanitation in city government. 
Then, in the second place, it became 
evident that national party labels on 
municipal ballots served to distract the 
attention of the voters from real munic¬ 
ipal issues. As lias been aptly said, the 
use of the Republican or Democratic 
insignia in city elections served as a 
sort of “smoke-screen,” behind which 
municipal spoilsmen and office-brokers 
could hide in safety. And finally, the 
comparatively recent demand for real 
efficiency in municipal government has 
brought with it a recognition of the 
distinction between politics and ad¬ 
ministration and of the fact that city 
government is largely a matter of ad¬ 
ministration. The real issues in mu¬ 
nicipal elections are in the main, issues 
of administrative efficiency rather than 
issues of policy upon which political 
parties might be expected to differ. It 
has seemed desirable therefore, to rule 

1 Party lines have never been so closely drawn 
in municipal politics and the stigma of irregular¬ 
ity has not attached to the man who has as¬ 
sumed an attitude of independence. For further 
elaboration of this see Merriam, American Party 
System, 89 ff. 


83 


84 


The Annals of the American Academy 


out partisanship from the field of city 
politics as an irrelevant hindrance to 
business-like administration. Wheth¬ 
er or not the worthy ideals here men¬ 
tioned have been, or can be attained by 
the simple act of striking party labels 
and emblems from the municipal ballot 
is a question however which can be 
answered only in the light of actual 
experience. 

B. Present Extent of Non-Partisanship 
in Local Government 

There is no easy way of determining 
the precise number of municipalities in 
the United States in which non-partisan 
primary and election ballots are used, 
and the value of such statistical infor¬ 
mation would hardly compensate for 
the labor necessary to acquire it. 
There are some states in which munic¬ 
ipal nominations and elections are re¬ 
quired by state law to be non-partisan. 2 
In other states, towns and cities under 
home-rule or optional charter provi¬ 
sions, enjoy the privilege of dispensing 
with party labels and emblems if they 
so desire. An overwhelming majority 
of the cities which have adopted the 
commission and commission-manager 
plans of government have introduced 
the non-partisan ballot. In addition, 
there are a number of larger cities, 
among them Cleveland, Buffalo, Bos¬ 
ton, Pittsburg and Philadelphia, 

2 In North Dakota and Wisconsin all municipal 
elections are non-partisan. Laws of North 
Dakota, 1913, Chap. 73; Laws of Wisconsin, 1913, 
Chap. 5, sec. 35-20. In Minnesota the non-parti¬ 
san ballot is used in cities of the first and second 
classes and in villages having 8,000 inhabitants or 
more. Minnesota Laws, Chap. 12. Laws 1921, 
Chap. 8. It is interesting to note that the first 
Australian Ballot law adopted in the United 
States provided for a non-partisan municipal bal¬ 
lot for the city of Louisville, Kentucky. Laws 
of Kentucky, 1888, Chap. 266. The text of the 
act is also found in Wigmore, Australian Ballot 
System, p. 138. The non-partisan feature of 
this law can hardly be attributed, however, to an 
appreciation of the problem under discussion in 
this paper. 


where the non-partisan system prevails, 
while Chicago has eliminated party 
designations in the choice of aldermen. 

The extension of the non-partisan 
system to county government has been 
much slower than in the case of cities. 
In California, North Dakota and 
Minnesota, all county officers are nomi¬ 
nated and elected on non-partisan 
ballots in accordance with the require¬ 
ments of state law. 3 In other states 
the non-partisan principle has been 
applied to the election of particular 
county officers such as school super¬ 
intendents 4 and county judges. 5 It 
seems probable that the considerations 
which have accelerated the movement 
in cities will lead to its gradual exten¬ 
sion in county government as well. 

C. The Results of Non-Partisan Ballot 
in Local Government 

[a.] The Difficulty of Appraising the 
Results. It is rather difficult for sev¬ 
eral reasons to estimate with assurance 
the results of the non-partisan ballot 
in local primaries and elections. In 
the first place, there is a sharp conflict 
of judgment as reflected in the opinions 
of persons who are in a position to 
know. In the second place, the non¬ 
partisan ballot has in many cases 
ridden into city government upon a 
wave of aroused public sentiment, 
which could hardly fail to drive out cor¬ 
ruption and mismanagement, regard¬ 
less of the type of ballot used. How 
much of the happy consequences are 
due to this reform spirit and how much 
to the non-partisan ballot, it would be 
somewhat hazardous to say. And 
finally, the non-partisan ballot has 
usually been merely an incidental fea- 

3 California, Act of June 16, 1913; Minnesota, 
Laws 1913, Chap. 389; Laws of North Dakota, 
1919, Chap. 117. 

4 Nebraska, Laws of 1917, Chap. 37; Wyoming, 
Laws of 1915, Chap. 59; Wisconsin, Laws of 1911, 
Chap. 333. 

6 See infra, p. 86. 


Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 


85 


ture of a somewhat radically revised 
form of municipal government, em¬ 
bodying some form of the short ballot, 
as in the commission or commission- 
manager charters. Here again it is 
hard to state how large a share of the 
good result comes from the elimination 
of party designations from the ballot, 
and how much from the increased 
simplicity and responsibility arising 
from the short ballot. 

[b.] Has the Non-Partis an Ballot Made 
Local Government Non-Partisan? Lack 
of space precludes a consideration of 
the many advantages claimed for the 
non-partisan system by its advocates, 
or the unsatisfactory consequences at¬ 
tributed to it by its opponents. 6 We 
may, however, pause to inquire whether 
the system has really driven the na¬ 
tional parties out of municipal politics. 
It is probable that this has occured in 
the small towns and cities where can¬ 
didates are likely to be personally 
known to their fellow townsmen, al¬ 
though it must be admitted that the 
intrusion of national partisanship was 
never a very serious evil in such munici¬ 
palities. In the case of the larger 
cities however, the results are by no 
means so clear. It is probably true 
that the influence of the national and 
state party organizations in municipal 
affairs has been greatly weakened and 
in some cases practically eliminated, 
although it should be recalled that 
there have been several other types of 
municipal reform which have tended to 

6 An excellent summary of the arguments for 
and against the non-partisan municipal ballot 
is found in Capes, The Modern City and Its 
Government (1922), Chap. V. See also Arndt, 
The Emancipation of the American City (1917), 
Chap. VI. No attempt is here made to present 
an extended list of references on this point. 
See Munro, Bibliography of Municipal Govern¬ 
ment, 35-36. The matter has been widely 
discussed in the recent literature of municipal 
government and information relating to individ¬ 
ual cities is to be found in the volumes of the 
National Municipal Review. 


produce the same results. 7 That this 
has been a desirable thing is conceded 
even by strong party leaders. 8 It 
seems fairly clear however, that parti¬ 
sanship and not infrequently partisan¬ 
ship of an objectionable variety has 
flourished under the shelter of ano¬ 
nymity in our large cities. 9 In some 
of the cities having the non-partisan 
ballot, the traditional party alignment 
between Republicans and Democrats 
has been replaced by a party division 
upon the lines of conservatism versus 
radicalism in respect to social and 
economic problems. 10 Minneapolis, 
St. Paul and Milwaukee afford exam¬ 
ples of this situation. It seems safe to 
say that the elimination from the mu¬ 
nicipal ballot in large cities of party 
designations does not ipso facto elimi¬ 
nate municipal partisanship. Where 
the electorate is large, or where the 
ballot is long, or where both conditions 
exist, party organizations are doubtless 
inevitable and desirable. The voter 
can hardly do without some sort of 
guide in making his selection of candi¬ 
dates unless he is to resort to sheer 

7 Among these may be mentioned civil service 
reform, centralized purchasing and improved 
regulation of municipal contracts. 

8 Such is the testimony of such a staunch party 
leader as the late Senator Boies Penrose of 
Pennsylvania. Shortly after the enactment of 
the new charter for Philadelphia in June, 1919, 
he expressed himself as follows: “One general 
principle is clearly establishing itself; that 
municipal government increases in efficiency 
in the exact ratio in which it is divorced from 
partisan politics. In this connection I might 
state that in my judgment, party efficiency and 
capacity for general public service increases in 
the ratio in which it disentangles itself from 
municipal politics. For instance, party prin¬ 
ciples are not even a secondary consideration 
with the Democratic Tammany machine in 
New York, or the Republican contractor’s 
machine in Philadelphia. Each of them exists 
solely to promote selfish interests, and each of 
them is an incubus and a liability to the party 
with which it is aligned.” Municipal Reform 
in Philadelphia (pamphlet issued by Citizen’s 
Charter Committee), p. 1. 


The Annals of the American Academy 


guesswork. Whether he is better off 
under a system where the organizations 
supporting candidates must work un¬ 
officially and without the aid of party 
labels, than he is under a scheme where 
the party labels used are of necessity 
more or less irrelevant to the issues in¬ 
volved in the election, becomes a much 
closer question than many of the 
advocates of non-partisanship are will¬ 
ing to admit. The writer ventures the 
opinion that while the results accom¬ 
plished by the non-partisan ballot in 
local government have been far less 
salutary and revolutionary than was 
expected at the outset of the move¬ 
ment, those results have on the whole 
been distinctly wholesome. 11 

II. Non-Partisan Nominations and 

Elections to Judicial Office 

A. Causes of the Movement 

Several factors have contributed to 
the extension of the non-partisan 
ballot to judicial primaries and elec¬ 
tions. In the first place, there has 
always seemed to be a certain in¬ 
congruity in choosing upon the basis 
of party affiliation, officials whose 
functions demanded the most rigid 
impartiality and the most complete 

9 See the interesting symposium upon the 
question of non-partisanship in municipal gov¬ 
ernment, National Municipal Review, VI, 201- 
237 (1917). Nor have party lines been elimi¬ 
nated from municipal elections in England where 
the non-partisan ballot is used. Munro, Gov¬ 
ernment of American Cities, 158; Munro, Govern¬ 
ment of European Cities, 34G-7. Lowell, 
Government of England, II, 151. 

10 Dr. Charles A. Beard takes the position that 
this is a normal tendency which is bound to 
extend itself. He concludes that in view of such 
a definite and inevitable party division in munic¬ 
ipal politics, no gain will be had from the elim¬ 
ination of party problems from the ballot. See 
his article. Politics and City Government, 
National Municipal Review VI, 201-6 (1917). 

11 Professor Munro is of the opinion that more 
is to be gained by encouraging the state parties 
to incorporate definite municipal issues into 
their platforms, thus securing party responsibility 


freedom from partisan or personal in¬ 
fluence. Secondly, it has been a no¬ 
torious fact that in numerous cases, 
political parties have not scrupled to 
use judicial offices as the spoils of 
party warfare, and have in some cases 
practically sold judicial nominations 
to men who would pay the highest 
price. 12 Various methods had been 
devised to eliminate these grosser evils 
and to protect the independence of 
the bench. In one or two instances 
systems of election or appointment 
were adopted designed to guarantee 
bi-partisan courts. 13 It seemed but 
a natural and desirable step, therefore, 
to provide that judicial officers should 
be chosen on ballots from which all 
party designations have been removed. 

B. The Present Status of the Non- 
Partisan Judicial Ballot 

There are at present eleven states 
in which the non-partisan judicial 
ballot is in use for the election of 
Supreme Court, district or county 
judges. 14 There are in addition, nu¬ 
merous cases which need not be con¬ 
sidered here, in which municipal j udges 
are chosen on non-partisan ballots 
along with all the other municipal 
officials. In Kansas, Iowa and Penn¬ 
sylvania the non-partisan judicial bal- 

in municipal affairs, than by adopting a non¬ 
partisan ballot. Government of American Cities, 
160-1. See also Maltbie, Municipal Political 
Parties, Proceedings of the National Municipal 
League, 1900, p. 235. It may, however, be 
questioned whether the Republican and Demo¬ 
cratic Parties under normal circumstances would 
find themselves in disagreement upon municipal 
issues. 

12 Beard, American Government and Politics 
(3d Ed.) 669, quoting from the hearings before 
the Mazet Commission (1899), “to investigate 
Public Offices and Departments of the City of 
New York.” Also Ostrogorski, Democracy and 
the Organization of Political Parties, II, 425. 

13 Const, of Delaware, Art. IV, Sec. 3 (1897) 
provides in part that “the said appointment 
[by the governor] shall be such that no more than 
three of the said five law judges [of the Supreme 




Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 


87 


lot has been abandoned. 15 In Minne¬ 
sota the non-partisan system has been 
retained; but under the provisions 
of a recent law, political parties are 
allowed in party convention to endorse 
candidates for the Supreme Bench 16 
and the Republican Party and the 
Farmer-Labor Party both availed 
themselves of this privilege in the 
1922 election. 

C. The Results of the Non-Partisan 
Judicial Ballot 

[a.] Advantages of the System. The^ 
advantages claimed for the non-par¬ 
tisan judicial ballot may be stated as 
follows: First, it has made possible 
the election to judicial office of men 
affiliated with minority parties. States 
which are dominantly Republican, 
for example, found that under the 
party system only Republicans were 
likely to be chosen as judges. 17 With 
a non-partisan ballot, Democrats and 
Republicans could compete in such 
states upon a practically equal footing. 
This consideration had weight at the 
time of the introduction of the non¬ 
partisan system in Minnesota in 1912. 18 

Court] in office at the same time, shall have been 
appointed from the same political party.” In 
Pennsylvania minority party representation on 
the Supreme Court is provided for by a system 
of limited voting as follows: “Whenever two 
judges of the Supreme Court are to be chosen for 
the same term of service each voter shall vote for 
one only, and when three are to be chosen he shall 
vote for no more than two.” Const. Art. V, 
Sec. 16. A similar scheme for judicial elections 
in Philadelphia is provided in Section 12 of the 
same article. For a defense of a bi-partisan 
judiciary see the address, Politics arid the Judici¬ 
ary, W. R. Smith, proceedings of the Bar 
Association of Kansas, 1905, p. 53, reprinted in 
Reinsch, Readings on American State Government, 
158. 

14 The list, with the dates of adoption of the 
non-partisan system, is as follows: Arizona 
(1911, by constitutional provision), California 
(1911), Idaho (1913), Minnesota (1912), Ne¬ 
braska (1913), North Dakota (1917), Ohio (1911), 
South Dakota (1915), Washington (1911), 
Wisconsin (1911), Wyoming (1915). 


In the second place, the non-partisan 
judicial ballot has worked to the ad¬ 
vantage of the sitting judges who desire 
reelection. This is probably a whole¬ 
some result on the whole. It arises 
from the fact that usually all that the 
voter can learn about judicial candi¬ 
dates is that one is already on the bench 
and the other is not; and feeling that 
in general, judicial experience is desir¬ 
able, he votes for the man who has 
had it. While this sometimes results 
in the retention of judges who might 
better be retired, this is the exception 
and not the rule. In the third place, 
the non-partisan system has tended to 
develop in the bar of the state a sense 
of responsibility in respect to judicial 
candidates, and has led them in a 
few cases to adopt the policy of making 
a more or less formal endorsement of 
the men they regard as best fitted to 
hold judicial office. 19 Where this is 
done the voter is given guidance of 
genuine value in casting his ballot. 
Fourthly, in several of the northwestern 
states, where the determination of the 
Non-Partisan League to effectuate its 
economic and political program has 
endangered the independence of the 
courts and threatened to lower the 


15 The Kansas non-partisan judiciary act. 
Laws of 1913, Chap. 193, was repealed at the 
next session of the legislature. See Laws 1915, 
Chap. 207. In Iowa the non-partisan system 
established by Chap. 104, Laws of 1911, was re¬ 
pealed years later. Laws of 1917, Chap. 63. 
An interesting system was set up in its place. 
Judicial nominations in Iowa are made by special 
party conventions held for that purpose alone. 
Each party holds a convention for nominating 
political officers and another to nominate judicial 
candidates. The membership of these con¬ 
ventions is required by law to be mutually 
exclusive. The election of judges is by party 
ballot. Pennsyslvania in 1921, Laws of 1921, 
Chap. 423, abolished the non-partisan judicial 
ballot which had been in use since 1913, Laws of 
1913, Chap. 1001, and restored judicial nomi¬ 
nations by party conventions. In 1913 a state 
law was passed in Missouri ( Laws of 1913, p. 334) 
providing a non-partisan ballot for state circuit 




88 


The Annals of the American Academy 


standard of judicial ability therein, 
the ballot without party designation 
enables the more conservative ele¬ 
ments in the electorate to join re¬ 
gardless of party lines, in an effort to 
prevent such undesirable results. 20 
Finally, judges chosen by the non¬ 
partisan system assume office free 
from any political obligations of a 
definitely partisan character. So far 
as this result has actually been at¬ 
tained, it is of course wholesome and 
has doubtless tended to increase the 
confidence of the people in the im¬ 
partiality and integrity of the courts. 

[ b .] The Disadvantages of the System. 
The criticisms which have been urged 
against the non-partisan judicial ballot 
come in the main not from those who 
wish to throw the courts into partisan 
politics, but from those who are trying 
to raise the standards of judicial 
efficiency. Most of these critics are 
entirely out of sympathy with the 
method of choosing judges by popular 
election and particularly with the 
scheme of nomination by direct pri¬ 
mary. Their position is not that the 
election of judges upon a partisan 


judges in St. Louis. A judicial nominating 
convention was provided for composed of dele¬ 
gates from all political parties in ratio of party 
strength. The candidates so nominated were 
to be voted for on a non-partisan ballot. Not 
more than half of such candidates could be 
members of the same party. This interesting 
law was repealed in 1919 (Laws of 1919, p. 329). 

16 Laws of Minnesota, 1921, Chap. 322, Sec. 16. 
By this act the pre-primary conventions pro¬ 
vided for are authorized “to endorse candidates 
of the party for any office to be voted for by the 
voters of the entire state. ...” This, of 
course, includes Supreme Court justices, although 
they are nominated and elected on a non-partisan 
ballot. While the bill was being discussed in 
the legislature it was proposed to allow party 
endorsement of candidates for all offices, whether 
non-partisan or partisan, but this suggestion was 
not adopted. 

17 That this was not invariably true, however, 
is shown by W. R. Smith, in his article, Politics 
and the Judiciary, supra, note 13. 


ballot is a good system, but that 
their election on a non-partisan ballot 
is a worse system. The reasons ad¬ 
duced in support of this view may 
be thus summarized: First, the elimina¬ 
tion of party labels from the judicial 
ballot makes it increasingly difficult 
for the voter to make even a mildly 
intelligent selection of judicial candi¬ 
dates. 21 A party label may be a poor 
guide, but it is better than none at all. 
In the first non-partisan judicial elec¬ 
tion held in Ohio in 1912, the voter was 
given a separate judicial ticket devoid 
of party designations, containing the 
names of thirty-one candidates from 
which to select eight men to hold six 
different grades of judicial office. The 
writer, attempting to vote in that 
election, was unable to secure any 
shred of information respecting the 
ability, character or associations of 
more than one or two of these men. 
Further evidence of the voter’s diffi¬ 
culty in the non-partisan judicial 
election is found in the report on 
Criminal Justice in Cleveland made 
under the auspices of the Cleveland 
Foundation where it said: 

This kind of voting in Cleveland has 
produced some curious results. At least 
two candidates, hitherto unknown to the 
public and of no marked fitness for the 

18 The Bar Association of Ramsey County 
(St. Paul) went on record in favor of a non¬ 
partisan bench. See Minneapolis Journal, 
May 21, 1912, p. 4. See editorial in same 
paper. May 22,1912, supporting the non-partisan 
judicial ballot proposal on ground that Demo¬ 
crats could not secure judicial office before. 

19 The influence of the bar in the choice of 
judges is probably greater in Wisconsin than 
elsewhere. A bar primary is held and candidates 
thus brought forward almost invariably receive 
popular support at the polls. See Bulletin IV-A 
of the American Judicature Society, p. 9; also 
the address of Chief Justice Winslow of the Wis¬ 
consin Supreme Court, The Problem of Non- 
Partisan Judicial Reform, Minutes of Kansas 
State Bar Association for 1914, p. 41. In Minne¬ 
sota the local bar associations frequently en¬ 
dorse candidates for local or district judicial 




89 


Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 


bench, were elected to the Municipal Court 
because they bore the same names as two 
retired Common Pleas judges who had 
built up good will through many years of 
service. In one election a blacksmith 
carried Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) 
as a candidate for Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio, because his name 
was similar to that of the well-known judge 
of the Probate Court. At the next suc¬ 
ceeding election for the Supreme Court the 
same man ran third in the field of seven . 22 

The results in Ohio would doubtless 
be better if there were a shorter judicial 
ballot; but even in Minnesota, where 
a considerably shorter ballot does 
prevail, the voter finds himself pretty 
much at sea in voting for judicial 
candidates. 

A second criticism of the system 
under discussion is that it accentuates 
perhaps the most unfortunate aspect 
of the elective judiciary; namely, the 
necessity for personal campaigning by 
candidates for judicial office. The 
party primary and the non-partisan 
primary are both objectionable in 
this regard, but by the non-partisan 
election the evil is carried over into 
the final campaign as well. Under the 
old party system the prospective 
judge could rely upon the party or¬ 
ganization to present his claims. He 

office. This is particularly true in Minneapolis 
and St. Paul. Here, however, the nominations 
do not originate even indirectly from the bar 
and the endorsement is in the form of an ex¬ 
pression of preference for certain of the candi¬ 
dates who have offered themselves. 

20 In North Dakota, for example, a candidate 
for the state supreme court appeared before the 
convention of the Non-Partisan League and 
promised publicly, if elected, to vote to sustain 
the constitutionality of the League program. 
He was elected by a large vote. See Bruce, 
The Non-Partisan League , 170, 172-3. 

21 A. M. Kales, Methods of Selecting and Re¬ 
tiring Judges, Bulletin VI of American Judicature 
Society, p. 36; James Parker Hall, The Selection, 
Tenure and Retirement of Judges , Bulletin X of 
American Judicature Society, p. 10. 

22 Criminal Justice in Cleveland, p. 269. 


did not have to go out as a rule and seek 
votes in person. The greater dignity 
of the campaign so conducted made 
it possible to induce men to run for 
judicial office, to whom the necessity 
for widespread self-advertisement would 
be most repugnant. It is of course 
true that the non-partisan system has 
not converted all our judicial cam¬ 
paigns into vulgar exhibitions of dema¬ 
goguery. It has, however, been of 
advantage to the candidate who under¬ 
stands the science of publicity and 
^in conspicuous cases, as in Cleveland 
and in California, has developed a 
practice of judicial popularity-seeking 
quite incompatible w r ith the efficiency 
and integrity of the bench. 23 

Finally, the non-partisan ballot has 
tended to create a system of wholly 
irresponsible nominations and elec¬ 
tions to judicial office. Under the 
party convention system there w r as 
a definite sponsorship of judicial candi¬ 
dates by the party organizations. 24 
It is true that abuses crept into the 
system. But it is also true that party 
organizations have in recent years 
grasped the opportunity of nominating 
judicial candidates of high character 

23 Ibid., p. 268 et seq. In this same study it is 
shown by statistical charts, that the judges in 
Cleveland prior to the adoption of the non-parti¬ 
san ballot, “were apparently well seasoned in the 
private practice of law, whereas after that date 
the majority had been trained chiefly in the 
office of inferior judge or prosecutor.” Ibid., 
pp. 255-8. In other words, the man holding 
political office, with its consequent publicity 
has an advantage in seeking high judicial office 
over the less conspicuous practitioner. The 
existence of a somewhat similar and equally 
undesirable situation in California is pointed 
out in the Transactions of the Commonwealth 
Club of California, Vol. IX, 311-12. 

24 The major objection is perhaps against any 
kind of judicial primary. The non-partisan 
primary is no worse than the party primary and 
may be in some respects better since it makes 
possible the nomination of independent candi¬ 
dates. But the non-partisan election carries 
over all the evils of the primary into the actual 
election of judicial candidates. 



90 


The Annals of the American Academy 


as an effective means of strengthening 
the party ticket. The party has 
frequently much at stake in nominat¬ 
ing and supporting a first-class man. 
It becomes, to use President Lowell’s 
phrase, a responsible“ broker” of candi¬ 
dates. Under the non-partisan system 
this “brokerage” disappears entirely, 
leaving the voter practically without 
chart or compass wherewith to steer 
an intelligent course. 

In conclusion, the writer ventures the 
opinion that no substantial gain has 
been made by the introduction of the 
non-partisan judicial ballot, but that in 
general it has resulted in a less intel¬ 
ligent selection of judicial officers. 

III. Non-Partisan Primaries and 

Elections for Political Offices 

in State Government 

A. History and Development 

The extension of the non-partisan 
ballot in local and judicial elections has 
naturally stimulated the inquiry wheth¬ 
er all state officers might not properly 
be chosen on ballots without party 
designations. Proposals to this effect 
were included in two governor’s mes¬ 
sages in 1917 25 and in two states, 
California and North Dakota; the 
voters have voted upon the question 
in each case adversely. In both of 
these cases the proposals for a state¬ 
wide non-partisan ballot seems to have 
been defended or attacked largely upon 
the basis of their probable effect upon 
the fortunes of the various political 
interests involved, rather than upon 
the pure merits of the issue itself. 26 

25 Governor Frazier of North Dakota recom¬ 
mended that all county legislative and state 
officers be chosen on a non-partisan ballot. Gov¬ 
ernor Lister of Washington proposed the non¬ 
partisan system for state, county and city elec¬ 
tions. 

20 The California non-partisan election laws 
were passed in 1915, in response to the urgent 
message of Governor Johnson. For the sub¬ 
stance of his message see Non-Partisan Govern- 


The interesting experience of Min¬ 
nesota, in which state members of both 
houses of the state legislature have been 
nominated and elected upon a non¬ 
partisan ballot since 1913, merits some¬ 
what more extended consideration. 27 

B. Non-Partisan Legislative Ballot in 
Minnesota 

[a.] Origin of the System. 28 The elim¬ 
ination of party emblems from the 
legislative ballot in Minnesota was not 
a “reform” movement. There had 
been no previous demand for it nor 
discussion of it. It came with a shock 
of surprise not only to the state at 
large, but probably to most of the mem¬ 
bers of the legislature responsible for its 
enactment into law. It apparently 
grew out of a rather complex local po¬ 
litical situation in which the following 
factors seem to have exerted more or 
less influence: First, were involved the 
political ambitions of the then Repub¬ 
lican governor, who had managed to 
alienate a portion of his own party and 
who felt that his interests would be 
furthered by a weakening of party 
lines. 29 Second, the liquor interests of 
the state are said to have proposed the 
non-partisan feature as a means of 
making the direct primary law under 

ment, American Political Science Review, IX, 
313. A referendum was invoked under the 
auspices of the state Republican Committee. 
Arguments for and against the measure are 
found in the official publicity pamphlet issued 
by the Secretary of State prior to the referendum 
election and in the Transactions of the Common- 
wealth Club of California, Vol. X, p. 459 et seq. 
The proponents of the measure seemed on the 
defensive. The opponents of it charged that 
it was designed to serve the political interests 
of the rapidly dying Progressive Party. In the 
special election held on October 26, 1915, the 
measure was defeated by a vote of 112,681 for 
and 156,967 against. 

The North Dakota Non-Partisan Election 
measure was initiated by the Independent 
Voters’ Association. That organization in¬ 
stituted a recall election against Governor 
Frazier (Non-Partisan League) and two of his 




Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 


consideration so obnoxious as to insure 
its defeat, whereas the dry forces came 
forward with unexpected support for 
it. 30 

Finally, it has been suggested, the 
1912 Progressives desired to reenter 
the Republican fold in the state with¬ 
out openly assuming the humiliating 
role of the prodigal son. They could 
return under cover of non-partisan¬ 
ship. 31 Just how much weight is to be 
attached to these influences it is ex¬ 
ceedingly difficult to say. 

[6.] The Results of the System 

(1) Difficulty of Appraisal. There 
exists in Minnesota what seems to the 
writer to be an almost even difference of 
opinion as to the relative merits and 
demerits of the non-partisan legislative 
ballot. Able and thoughtful people 
have reached conclusions which are 
diametrically opposed. 32 In 1921, the 
writer sent a questionnaire to the mem¬ 
bers of both houses of the Minnesota 
legislature, asking for opinions upon 
various phases of the non-partisan 
system. 33 Replies were received from 
about one third of the members; prac¬ 
tically half of these expressed the 
opinion that the non-partisan system 
had produced beneficial results, while 
the other half were firmly convinced 
that it had worked in a thoroughly un¬ 
satisfactory manner. Opinions of both 
varieties came indiscriminately from 


associates in office and initiated seven measures, 
of which this was one, to be voted on in that 
election. The Independents gave the non¬ 
partisan election measure divided and somewhat 
half-hearted support during the campaign. 
The Non-Partisan League forces attacked it, 
calling it the “Federal Job Act,” and claiming 
that it was designed to allow those who were 
fighting the Republican Party in the state 
(which the Non-Partisan League had largely 
captured) to lay claim as Republicans to federal 
patronage within the state. See official publicity 
pamphlet issued by the Secretary of State. 
In the recall election on October 28, 1921, the 
Non-Partisan League officers were recalled, but 
all of the measures initiated by the Independent 


members who had served under both 
systems. 

There is another factor also which 
makes it hard to appraise the results of 
the Minnesota system. This is the in¬ 
teresting political situation which has 
developed quite generally in the North¬ 
west as a result of the political activi¬ 
ties of the Non-Partisan League. That 
organization, supported not infre¬ 
quently by the Socialists and by the 
labor group, has advanced a program 
which has aroused bitter opposition 
both among Republicans and Demo¬ 
crats, with the result that the tradi¬ 
tional political alignments have tended 
to be obscured. Recent campaigns in 
Minnesota have turned largely upon 
the issue of conservation against radi¬ 
calism. This situation has developed 
simultaneously with, but wholly in¬ 
dependent of, the operation of the 
non-partisan legislative election sys¬ 
tem ; and any appraisal of the results of 
that system must of course reckon 
with the fact that the old Republican- 
Democratic political alignment would 
have largely disappeared from the 
Minnesota legislature, even if party 
designations had been left on the legis¬ 
lative ballot. Keeping in mind these 

Voters’ Association were defeated. The non¬ 
partisan election measure was beaten by a heavy 
vote. In the opinion of competent observers 
it helped to defeat the other measures. See 
analysis by Charles B. Cheney in Minneapolis 
Journal, December 6, 1921. 

27 Law of 1913, Chap. 389. 

28 In the remaining portion of this paper the 
writer has drawn heavily upon the researches of 
one of his graduate students, Sister Helen Angela 
Hurley, of the Faculty of the College of St. 
Catherine, St. Paul. He has also been aided 
by the observations and judgment of his col¬ 
league, Professor William Anderson, Director 
of the Bureau for Government Research, Uni¬ 
versity of Minnesota. 

29 Minneapolis Journal, May 17, 1912. An 
editorial entitled “A Move in Despair” char¬ 
acterized the proposed revision of the primary 
law out of which the non-partisan system grew 
as “the desperate act of a beaten man.” 




92 


The Annals of the American Academy 


facts, it is nevertheless possible to 
indicate certain fairly definite results 
which have come from the non-parti¬ 
san legislative ballot. 34 

(2) The Candidates. The non-parti¬ 
san nominating system has probably 
produced a more cosmopolitan group 
of candidates than the old plan. The 
door of opportunity stands open to any¬ 
one who can muster even very moder¬ 
ate support. 35 It has presented to the 
people some candidates of worth who 
might not have found favor with the 
regular party organizations, and it has 
also resulted in many nominations 
wholly irresponsible in character. It 
has by no means caused the nomina¬ 
tion and election of persons without 
party affiliations. The candidates are 
almost invariably members of political 
parties rather than bona fide independ¬ 
ents. There seems to be a general 
opinion that the calibre of legislators 
is fully as high as it was before the pres¬ 
ent system was introduced and perhaps 
even higher. And yet, if the Min- 


30 The writer has heard this statement made 
upon the authority of the leaders of the “dry” 
forces in the legislature of 1913. See also 
Minneapolis Tribune, Feb. 28, 1913. 

31 Minneapolis Journal, February 28, 1913, 
p. 19. 

32 Unfortunately very few of them have ex¬ 
pressed their views in writing. For an able 
argument against the Minnesota Direct Primary 
Law in general and the non-partisan nominating 
and electing system in particular, see pamphlet 
(privately printed), Minnesota Election Laws in 
Theory and Practise, by F. H. Carpenter, one of 
the leaders in the Republican state organization. 

33 The questions asked were in substance the 
following: 

1. Is the Minnesota legislature genuinely 
non-partisan? Do political groups therein hold 
caucuses to map out party policy? 

2. Is there effective leadership under the non¬ 
partisan system and if so what is its basis? 

3. Do you think that the people vote more 
intelligently because the legislative ballot is 
non-partisan? 

4. In general, do you think the results are 
better under the present system? 


nesota legislature has improved in its 
general tone and in the calibre of its 
members, it must also be borne in mind 
that that result may also be in large 
measure attributed to the elimination 
from state politics of the liquor issue 
with all its deplorable tendency to 
undermine legislative integrity. 

(3) The Issues in Legislative Cam¬ 
paigns. Under the non-partisan ballot 
system, policies and principles have 
largely disappeared as issues in legisla¬ 
tive campaigns. In some cases the 
campaign has turned on the question 
of conservatism versus radicalism, but 
usually little or no effort has been made 
to translate those slogans into concrete 
terms. The determining factors in the 
campaign are the personality and ex¬ 
perience of the candidates, and the 
extent to which their names are gener¬ 
ally known. A premium is placed 
upon self-advertising. Under the non¬ 
partisan arrangement, the state politi¬ 
cal parties have found little effective 
use for party platforms; and certainly 
legislative candidates have paid scant 
attention to such platforms even when 
admitting their own party affiliations. 
In fact, there is a discernible.tendency 
upon the part of such candidates to 
refuse to commit themselves publicly 
to anything definite in the way of prin¬ 
ciples, although this is not invariably 

34 The writer can produce little documentary 
evidence in support of the following statements 
as to the results of the Minnesota non-partisan 
system. The statements are based to a large 
extent upon the confidential replies to the ques¬ 
tionnaire sent to the members of the legislature 
and also upon the writer’s personal observations 
and discussion with other interested observers. 

a-> In 1922 an undergraduate in the University 
of Minnesota, one of the writer’s students at that 
time, ran for legislative nomination in one of 
the Minneapolis districts and secured it. He 
relied chiefly for support upon the fact that he 
held a card in one of the railway unions and that 
he had been a conspicuous figure in university 
athletics and was personally popular on the 
campus. He was defeated for election.. 





Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 


93 


the case. 36 Thus legislative elections 
in Minnesota tend to degenerate into 
popularity contests rather than con¬ 
tests from which any popular mandate 
upon legislative matters can be inferred. 
In the campaign of 1922, this condi¬ 
tion of affairs was further accentuated 
in some twenty odd districts by the 
fact that both the candidates were 
members of the same political party 
and could hardly be expected to be in 
any marked disagreement with each 
other. The party affiliations of the 
candidates are generally known, and 
in the more populous districts this is 
frequently about all the concrete in¬ 
formation concerning the contestants 
which the average voter can secure^ 
But except in the cases where the issue 
of conservatism against radicalism has 
crept in, it is hard to say how much 
weight is to be attached to such party 
affiliations. Various parties, groups 
and organizations resort to the practice 
of endorsing certain of the candidates 
during the campaign; but this does not 
necessarily mean that the candidates 
have promised to support any partic¬ 
ular principles in order to secure such 
endorsements. 37 

(4) The Intelligence of the Voter in 
the Legislative Campaign. From what 
has been said it is fairly clear that the 
intelligence with which the elector 

36 The Minnesota League of Women Voters 
sent a questionnaire upon specific legislative 
issues to all legislative candidates in 1922. Of 
the 396 who survived the primary about 155 
sent replies. These replies were not published, 
but were open for inspection at the League head¬ 
quarters. It would of course be unfair to 
assume that because a candidate failed to make 
a reply, he was trying to conceal his views on 
legislative issues, but the figures are nevertheless 
significant. 

37 The Farmer-Labor Party publicly endorsed 
candidates for the legislature in 1922. In 
certain districts where two Republicans were 
running against each other the Farmer-Labor 
endorsement of one of them proved in some cases 
embarrassing to the recipient by creating a 
misleading impression as to his views. 


casts his vote for legislator in Minne¬ 
sota depends upon what he can find 
out about the personal characteristics 

of the candidates. In the rural dis- 
§ * 

tricts where personal acquaintance 
is general and easy, there is evidence 
that real discrimination is used. 38 In 
the larger cities the voter’s problem 
is more difficult. There is plenty 
of political advertising sounding the 
praises of the various aspirants, and 
one is sometimes aided by the open 
endorsements of candidates by various 
groups and interests. But unbiased 
information about the real character 
and ability of the contestants it is 
almost impossible to secure, to say 
nothing of reliable data as to their 
principles and policies. This is the 
writer’s own experience and that of 
many thoughtful people with whom he 
has discussed the matter. 

(5) Is the Minnesota Legislature a 
Non-Partisan Body? There seems to 
be little doubt that the Minnesota 
legislature functions in the main on a 
non-partisan basis. While it is true 
that each member as a rule is aware 
of the party affiliations of his col¬ 
leagues, an analysis of the voting would 
fail to show any marked alignment of 
Republicans against Democrats. 39 
Upon certain issues there has been 
a definite lining up of conservatives 
against radicals, but this would un- 

38 The original non-partisan law in Minnesota 
required the words “Nominated at primary 
election non-partisan” to appear on the ballot 
after candidates’ names. Laws of 1912, Chap. 
12. In the election of 1918, the first in which the 
Non-Partisan League figured, this led to con¬ 
fusion, especially in rural districts, where the 
voters thought the word non-partisan referred 
to the Non-Partisan League. To remedy this 
the law was changed in 1919 (Laws of 1919, Chap. 
230) so that the words “Nominated without 
party designation” now appear after the names 
of candidates for non-partisan office. 

39 This was the practically unanimous verdict 
of the legislators who replied to the above- 
mentioned questionnaire sent by the writer, 


94 


The Annals of the American Academy 

i 


doubtedly have taken place had the 
members been elected on party ballots. 
The Socialist and Non-Partisan League 
members in the legislature in 1921 
held party caucuses throughout the 
session and voted as a unit upon many 
measures. The Republicans and 
Democrats, however, did not caucus 
upon matters of legislative policy 
and no open efforts seem to have been 
made to encourage the recognition of 
party lines. Individual members seem 
to be governed in voting largely by 
their own personal judgments and 
no stigma attaches to the Republican 
or Democrat who votes against the 
majority of his fellow partisans. It is 
possible that the added strength in 
the legislature which the Farmer- 
Labor party will enjoy in the session 
of 1923, will produce a more clear-cut 
and permanent alignment of conserva¬ 
tive against radical forces so that a 
new and genuine partisan division 
will appear; but at the time of writing 
it is too early to predict this with 
assurance. 

(6) Leadership in the Minnesota 
Legislature. In the absence of well- 
organized party groups, leadership 
in the Minnesota legislature has been 
greatly weakened and during sub¬ 
stantial periods seems to have dis¬ 
appeared altogether. What leader¬ 
ship there is seems to rest largely 
upon the basis of personality and 
legislative experience. It tends to 
fluctuate and is frequently purely 
temporary. Prior to each legislative 
session, it is customary to hold an 
informal inter-party caucus to lay 
plans for the selection of the speaker 
and the choice of committee chairmen. 40 
Certain men assume naturally a more 

40 Such a caucus was held in November, 1922. 
See Minneapolis Journal, November 22, 1922, 
p. 17, and Minneapolis Morning Tribune, Novem¬ 
ber 22, 1922, p. 1, for an account of work done 
by this caucus. 


or less dominating position on such 
occasions. They can never be sure 
of continued influence however. They 
may forge to the front as certain 
issues come up for consideration, and 
then find themselves deserted as soon 
as those issues are disposed of. This 
was notably true of the leadership 
which asserted itself in 1915 and 1917 
when the question of prohibition was 
being discussed. This lack of perma¬ 
nent leadership and discipline has the 
advantage of leaving legislators a full 
freedom of action, in striking contrast 
to the iron-clad rule of the party 
caucus in other state legislatures. 
It results, however, in a good deal 
of confusion and lost energy; and it 
also tends to accentuate in the mind 
of the legislator, the local interests of 
the district to which alone he finds 
himself responsible. 

(7) The Position of the Governor. 
Not the least interesting consequence 
of the non-partisan legislative ballot 
in Minnesota is its effect upon the 
position of the governor. The gov¬ 
ernor in Minnesota, as elsewhere, is 
coming to be regarded as a leader of 
legislative policy. 41 He is the only 
officer chosen by the state at large who 
has any real share in the process of 
legislation, and the people look to him 
as the spokesman and defender of 
state-wide interests. More than any 
other officer in Minnesota he runs 
upon a platform of policies, although 
the definiteness of that platform is 
not always its outstanding feature. 
And yet the governor must depend for 
the carrying out of his policies, to 

41 The Democratic State Platform in 1922, 
for instance, contained this statement: “We 
denounce the present administration for forcing 
upon the legislature the passage of a Tonnage 
Tax Law of doubtful validity. ...” The 
governor apparently had considerable influence 
in the legislature of 1921. See Minneapolis 
Journal, April 21, 1921; Minneapolis Morning 
Tribune, April 23, 1921. 


Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections 


95 


say nothing of the confirmation of 
his appointments, upon legislators 
committed to nothing in particular in 
the way of principles and sharing no 
responsibility for the fulfillment of 
any promises or declarations he has 
made. In fact, there have been nu¬ 
merous instances in which members of 
the legislature have refused during the 
campaign to take any stand whatever 
upon the gubernatorial contest, and 
have only been aroused to the fact that 
the governor was a fellow partisan 
when questions of patronage have 
arisen. Thus, while the governor is 
being held increasingly responsible 
by the people for legislative results, 
the non-partisan legislative system 
tends, in the proportion to which the 
legislature is genuinely non-partisan, 
to render his power actually to assume 
that responsibility largely a matter 
of luck. 

(8) Responsibility in the Non-Parti¬ 
san Legislature. From what has al¬ 
ready been said it must be apparent 
that the effective enforcement of 
responsibility for legislation in Minne¬ 
sota has been virtually destroyed by 
the non-partisan system. In no state 
is the enforcement of such responsibility 
an easy matter. In Minnesota, how¬ 
ever, where policies and principles 
are practically ignored in the legis¬ 
lative campaigns; where effective party 
discipline has disappeared from the 
legislative halls; where permanent and 
recognized leadership is almost wholly 
lacking, responsibility rests not upon 
any group or party, but upon the in¬ 
dividual members. In other words, 
legislative responsibility is almost ex¬ 
clusively personal in character, which 
means that for practical purposes it 
might as well not exist save in so far 
as the local interests of the individual 
legislative districts are concerned. 
There is plenty of evidence that the 
Minnesota legislators fully appreciate 


this situation. They are accountable 
to their particular constituents and to 
no one else. They need not concern 
themselves with the effect of their 
actions upon any party because they 
are not the spokesmen of any party. 
So long as he can secure a slice for 
his district, there is no effective po¬ 
litical influence to restrain any member 
from participating in the excesses 
of pork-barrel legislation; and it has 
been a matter of general comment that 
non-partisan legislatures in Minnesota 
have more than once passed appropria¬ 
tion laws and imposed tax levies which 
no responsible party would have dared 
to enact. 42 Many members of the 
^legislature have themselves borne wit¬ 
ness to the fact that there is a tempta¬ 
tion and a tendency for the legislator 
to react in a more or less personal way 
to legislative problems. He feels in¬ 
clined to avoid trouble and to keep 
his own political fences in repair. 
He can rest safely upon the assumption 
that his constituents will at most be 
familiar with only a very small part 
of his legislative record and that if the 
more conspicuous parts of that record 
pass muster, he need not worry about 
the rest. The writer does not wish 
to be understood as suggesting that 
members of the Minnesota legislature 
are lacking in patriotism or broad¬ 
mindedness, but to emphasize that 
the non-partisan system tends to make 
personal and local interests overshadow 
state-wide interests and at the same 
time practically obliterates real re¬ 
sponsibility for legislative results. 

IV. General Conclusions 

The net results of the foregoing 
study may be summarized as follows: 
First, in municipal and local govern¬ 
ment the non-partisan ballot has in 
general produced wholesome results. 

42 This charge was widely made against the 
legislature elected in 1916. 


96 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Second, the non-partisan judicial ballot 
has tended to accentuate rather than 
alleviate the evils incident to an 
elective judiciary. Third, the non¬ 
partisan legislative ballot in Minnesota 
has produced results which are on the 
whole more unsatisfactory than other¬ 
wise, although those results are to some 
extent colored by the local political 
situation. It is possible, however, to 
go further and suggest certain general 
principles which seem to govern the 
degree of success with which the non¬ 
partisan plan can be applied to vari¬ 
ous types of nominations and elections. 
These may be stated thus: 

(1) The Size of the Electoral Unit. 
The non-partisan plan works best 
where the electorate is small enough to 
make widespread acquaintance with 
the candidates possible. 

(2) The Length of the Ballot. Where 
a short ballot is being voted, electoral 
intelligence is higher and more general 
than where the ballot is long and 
complicated, and the absence of party 
designations from the ballot will prove 
a less serious handicap. In long 
ballot elections the non-partisan scheme 
leads to confusion worse confounded. 

(3) The Character of the Issues. 
The success of the non-partisan ballot 
will vary with the character of the 
issues involved in the election. Where 
the issues are primarily those of char¬ 
acter or personality, the results will 
tend to be good. This would be the 
case in the choice of city commissioners 
and the like. Where the issues are 
largely issues of technical ability and 
expert knowledge, as in the case of all 


but the lowest grades of judicial office, 
popular election will never produce 
satisfactory results and those results 
will on the whole be rendered worse 
by a non-partisan ballot. Where the 
issues in the election are, or ought to be, 
issues of policy or principle, they will 
be obscured by the non-partisan plan 
with a consequent falling off in effective 
responsibility, and the results will 
tend to be increasingly unsatisfactory 
in accordance with the extent to which 
non-partisanship becomes a reality 
rather than a fiction. 

(4) The Need of Endorsements in 
Non-Partisan Elections. Finally, the 
writer ventures to suggest that except 
in the smallest political units, the 
non-partisan ballot would produce 
better results if some plan were evolved, 
in accordance with which individual 
candidates might have printed after 
their names on the ballot, the endorse¬ 
ments of political and non-political 
groups or organizations. Provision 
should of course be made to make sure 
that such groups were actual and 
responsible bodies. Such endorse¬ 
ments, and a candidate might receive 
several, would aid the voter materially 
in making his choice by indicating 
the kind of sponsorship back of 
the various contestants. Experience 
shows that just this process goes on 
unofficially at present; and there is 
reason to believe that if such endorse¬ 
ments were legally recognized and 
regulated, some of the more confusing 
and unsatisfactory elements in our own 
non-partisan elections might be elim¬ 
inated. 


Pre-Primary Conventions 

By Schuyler C. Wallace 

Instructor in Political Science, Columbia University 


D OES pre-arrangement fatally com¬ 
promise the idea of the direct 
primary? Almost from the inception 
of the movement there has been an 
important body of opinion (represented 
at an early day by the so-called Hughes 
plan) which has accepted the notion 
that normally the natural leadership 
of a party must prevail and which has 
accordingly advocated the direct pri¬ 
mary as a corrective rather than as a 
source of constant popular initiative. 
On the other hand, it must be said that 
from the standpoint of the main body 
of agitation on behalf of the direct 
primary, and from the standpoint both 
of the spirit and of the letter of most 
direct primary laws, any element of 
pre-arrangement which tends to reduce 
to a mere formality the vote of the 
rank and file of the party members 
constitutes a fatal compromise. Pre- 
primary conventions, more perhaps 
than any other tangible feature in the 
machinery of nominations, afford an 
opportunity for such pre-arrangement. 
The law and the practice regarding 
them are crucial factors in the opera¬ 
tion of the direct primary. 

Legal Provisions Concerning the 
Pre-Primary Convention 

In Colorado, 1 South Dakota, 2 and 
Minnesota, 3 the old nominating con¬ 
vention has been combined with the 
direct primary. The schemes, however, 
are fundamentally different. In Colo¬ 
rado the purpose of the law has been 
two-fold: first, the elimination of non¬ 
entities from the ballot; and second, 

1 Colorado Election Laws 1922, D 1, sec. 4. 

1 South Dakota Code 1919, sec. 7108. 

8 Minnesota Election Laws 1922, sec. 370 A. 


the prevention of the manipulation of 
a convention to the advantage of any 
dominant clique. Both purposes are 
accomplished by placing before the 
voters all candidates within the party 
who have sufficient strength to warrant 
consideration. The convention itself 
cannot nominate. Instead, one ballot 
is cast. All those who receive ten per 
cent or more of the convention vote 
upon this ballot are placed before the 
voters at the primary. The contest is 
^ transferred from the convention to 
the polls. The choice is virtually 
thrust upon the voters. 

An altogether different principle un¬ 
derlies the law of South Dakota. There, 
responsibility of leadership is recog¬ 
nized and the statute has been shaped 
accordingly. The pre-primary con¬ 
vention whose composition is regulated 
by law, is directed to select a list of 
candidates and present it to the 
voters at the primary. Provision is 
made for a dissenting proposal on the 
part of any five members of the con¬ 
vention. Only one such, however, 
may emanate from the convention, 
although independent candidates may 
secure admission to the primary ballot 
by means of a petition. A special 
effort is made to render effective the 
campaigns of any insurgent or inde¬ 
pendent aspirants for the party nom¬ 
ination through a series of joint 
debates which are mandatory upon the 
convention designee. 

To an even greater extent is the 
principle of party responsibility recog¬ 
nized in Minnesota. There, the con¬ 
vention is directed to endorse but one 
candidate for each office and submit 
the proposal to the voters at the pri- 


8 


97 


98 


The Annals of the American Academy 


mary. Independent nomination may 
of course be made, but not until after 
the convention has acted. 

Maine , 4 * Nevada , 6 and Wyoming , 6 
make legal provision for pre-primary 
conventions. The purpose of such 
conferences is not the proposal of names 
for ratification or selection at the pri¬ 
maries, but rather to accomplish those 
other functions which are thought to 
be essential to party unity—the formu¬ 
lation of party principles, the selection 
of party central committees, the nom¬ 
ination of delegates to the national 
conventions, etc. Twenty-five states 7 
have deemed party conventions nec¬ 
essary for these purposes. Only the 
three named, however, have specified 
that they shall be held prior to the 
primary. Two other states, Mary¬ 
land and Washington, have placed 
the matter entirely in the hands of 
the state central committee; whereas 
Louisiana, Oregon, and Pennsylvania 
make no mention of the subject in 
their election laws, but nevertheless 
hold pre-primary conferences. The 
remaining states have created post¬ 
primary conventions. 

But what has the matter of a pre¬ 
primary or a post-primary convention, 
called for the purpose of formulating 
and promulgating a party platform, 
got to do with a pre-primary nomina¬ 
tions? Namely this, if the convention 
is held before the primary, there is a 

4 Maine Primary Election Laws 1920, sec. 2. 

6 Nevada Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 24. 

6 Wyoming Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 
2521. 

7 Arizona Election Laws 1921, sec. 639. 

California Election Laws 1922, ch. 3, sec. 24. 

Colorado Election Laws 1922, D 1, sec. 4. 

Indiana Election Laws 1922, sec. 427. 

Illinois Election Laws 1921, Art. 25, sec. 10 c. 

Iowa Election Laws 1922, sec. 1087-a27. 

Kansas General Statutes 1915, sec. 4190. 

Maine Primary Election Laws 1920, sec. 2. 

Maryland Election Laws 1922, secs. 41, 188. 

Minnesota Election Laws 1922, sec. 370 A. 

Michigan Election Laws 1919, sec. 3550. 


strong probability that some action- 
formal or tacit—will be taken with 
reference to party nominees. The 
state laws may provide, as the laws of 
Main and Nebraska do provide, that 
no formal action may be taken, but 
needless to say no method has been 
devised of preventing the formulation 
of a party slate by tacit understanding. 
The convention, called it is true for 
another purpose, must of necessity 
facilitate such understandings. The 
legislatures in a majority 8 of the states 
may well have been of this opinion, for 
in them the excuse of platform formu¬ 
lation has been taken away from the 
organization leaders by the fact that 
platform drafting is lodged with a post¬ 
primary convention. 

The Actual Practice of the Pre¬ 
primary Convention 

To what extent the law and the 
practice of holding pre-primary con¬ 
ventions diverge it is difficult to deter¬ 
mine. In the three states wherein it is 
mandatory upon the parties to hold 
conventions for nominating purposes, 
conventions belong to the normal 
course of events. In Colorado, one of 


Missouri Election Laws 1922, sec. 4850. 
Montana Election Laws 1921, sec. 639. 
Massachusetts Election Laws 1921, ch. 53, 
sec. 54. 

New Jersey Election Laws 1922, sec. 49. 
North Dakota Election Laws 1921, sec. 890. 
Ohio Election Laws 1920, sec. 4991-1. 

Nevada Election Laws 1922, sec. 24. 

New Hampshire Election Laws 1920, sec. 20. 
South Dakota Election Laws 1919, sec. 7108. 
Vermont Election Laws 1920, sec. 131. 
Washington Election Laws 1921, sec. 59. 
West Virginia Primary Election Laws 1922, 
sec. 3. 

Wisconsin Primary Election Laws 1921, sec. 
5.20. 

Wyoming Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 
2521. 

8 Ariz., Cal., Col., Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kan., 
Mass., Mich., Mo., Mont., N. H., N. J., N. D., 
Ohio, Vt., West Va., Wis. 




Pre-Primary Conventions 


99 


the states having a mandatory law, the 
convention has succeeded in eliminat¬ 
ing from the ticket all but the strong 
candidates, for despite the provision 
that all those who receive ten per cent 
or more shall be put upon the ballot, 
most of those who find the convention 
overwhelmingly against them drop out 
of the contest. Yet the fact that the 
convention cannot declare anyone nom¬ 
inated largely eliminates the opportu¬ 
nity for machine control. It has often 
occurred that the person obtaining the 
largest vote in the convention has been 
voted down at the primaries, and a 
seemingly weaker man been chosen 
nominee. The present governor of the 
state is an example of this. William C. 
Sweet was third in the Democratic 
convention, but first in the Democratic 
primary. 

The systems in operation in both 
South Dakota and Minnesota are 
especially interesting and have been 
treated wfith some detail elsewhere in 
this volume. 

No formal action is taken in any of 
the states in which it is mandatory to 
hold a pre-primary convention for the 
formulation of the party platform. 
The extent to which informal dickers 
take place it is impossible to tell. 

Both major parties in Washington, 
where the power of calling conventions 
at any time is definitely lodged with 
the state committees, hold pre-primary 
conventions. The work of their con¬ 
vention, according to the publicity 
department of the Republican Party, 
has been confined to platform making, 
and the selection of presidential elec¬ 
tors and delegates to national nomi¬ 
nating conventions. Without doubt 
tacit understandings are arrived at 
here, just as in the Democratic 
Party in the state, which, accord¬ 
ing to party officials, holds conven¬ 
tions that are both frequent and 
effective. In Louisiana, where the law 


does not mention the subject, conven¬ 
tions are sometimes held, although not 
as a regular practice. One was held 
in 1911 and one in 1919, but no formal 
action was taken during the interven¬ 
ing years. In each case the work of 
the convention proved effective. It is 
interesting to note the attempt of 
the Democrats this year to institute 
the practice in Pennsylvania where 
the law likewise makes no mention of 
the subject. The recommendation of 
the organization was followed by the 
voters in the case of the governor, but 
not in the case of the lieutenant-gov¬ 
ernor. 

Despite the provision in the laws 
of eighteen of the states for post¬ 
primary convention, pre-primary nom¬ 
inating conventions are held in at 
least ten. In Iowa, North Dakota, 
Vermont and Wisconsin, it is the 
regular practice to hold such conven¬ 
tions in one or another of the major 
parties, and probably in both. In the 
remaining states, Arizona, California, 
Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and 
New Hampshire, such conferences are 
held at least occasionally. The four 
states aforementioned maintain their 
practice of holding preliminary con¬ 
ventions for the endorsement of candi¬ 
dates, “so that” (in the w r ords of one 
of the state chairmen) “the vote may 
not be fatally scattered or divided.” 
In Iowa and Vermont, according to the 
statement of party officials, the action 
of the convention is equivalent to 
nomination. Wisconsin could be in¬ 
cluded in the same category except that 
upon certain issues it has been the 
practice to pass the decision on to 
the party membership. This was done 
in 1922 when the Democratic confer¬ 
ence endorsed two candidates for gov¬ 
ernor, Bentley, a “wet,” and Malthie, 
a “dry.” The contest was decided on 
primary day. In North Dakota the 
situation has been somewhat anoma- 


100 


The Annals of the American Academy 


lous. In 1920 all designees suggested 
by the regular Republican organization 
through its pre-primary convention 
were defeated in the primaries by the 
Non-Partisan League slate, itself the re¬ 
sult of pre-arrangement by conference. 

In the remaining states, according 
to information furnished by party 
officials, such conventions are but 
occasional, and informal. The con¬ 
vention in New Hampshire consists in 
an “informal gathering of recognized 
leaders.” Just how effective is its 
action cannot be said. In New Jersey 
it seems to be the practice very gen¬ 
erally to hold an informal gathering. 
The head of one of the party organ¬ 
izations says, “I, as State Chairman, 
select forty or fifty prominent party 
people of the state, men and women, 
for a two- or three-day conference, and 
we frame up a platform to be handed 
to the Convention.” Whether any¬ 
thing else is “framed up” is not stated. 
In Illinois it is said, “Pre-primary 
conferences are frequently held by 
numbers of party men. They assemble, 
discuss and agree upon whom they 
will support in the coming primary. 
Sometimes the state committee of the 
party has openly or secretly committed 
itself to the support of a slate of 
candidates.” How automatic is the 
action of the voters is not volunteered. 
Somewhat similar are the pre-primary 
conferences in both Louisiana and 
California. 

Nineteen twenty-two saw the inau¬ 
guration of the system in both Michi¬ 
gan and Arizona. The Democratic 
State Chairman in Michigan says: 

The primary system has utterly de¬ 
stroyed party responsibility and party 
solidarity for the Republican Party in this 
state. It bade fair to do the same thing to 
the Democratic Party. Realizing this and 
realizing that there was a chance for a 
Democratic success in Michigan in 1922, I 
called a pre-primary convention in Grand 


Rapids for the selection of primary candi¬ 
dates for state offices, several months before 
the primary. While this was called a con¬ 
vention, it was nothing more than a state¬ 
wide conference. A general invitation to 
Democrats and Progressive voters was 
issued through the press and was supple¬ 
mented by mailed notices to Democratic 
county organizations and prominent Demo¬ 
crats throughout the state. The conference 
was largely attended. It resulted in the 
selection and endorsement of Woodbridge 
N. Ferris for senator. He was nominated 
for the primary and as you probably know 
was later elected senator against his 
Republican opponent. 

There was a split in the conference in re¬ 
gard to the available man for governor, 
wffiich resulted in the selection of tw T o candi¬ 
dates, giving us a contest in the primary. 
Fortunately the state organization w r as 
able to keep this primary contest on a 
friendly basis so that it did not result in a 
party split. The pre-primary convention 
adopted a set of resolutions which was, in 
effect, the platform for the candidates. 
The candidates agreed to the resolutions. 
Substantially this set of resolutions became 
the party platform at the legal party con¬ 
vention held after the primary. 

The Democratic Party organization is in 
no way committed to the policy of holding 
a pre-primary convention. The one above 
referred to w r as the first and only one held. 
Heretofore conferences of from a half 
dozen to twenty or thirty leaders in the 
party have been held to select candidates for 
state offices. Personally I believe the 
general convention or conference is much 
the better plan. That is why it was adopted 
in 1922. 9 

In Arizona a similar situation existed. 
The Democratic Chairman describes it: 

I might say that I organized the first 
pre-primary convention ever held in this 
state and have given matters of this kind a 
lot of study. It was held primarily for the 
purpose of keeping the party together, 
as we have had since statehood two 
very distinct factions in the Democratic 
Party. 

9 Letter from the Democratic State Chairman. 


Pre-Primary Conventions 


101 


At the pre-primary “conference” which we 
called, we apparently had the two fac¬ 
tions united, and endorsed candidates by 
regular roll-call ballot for all state offices. 
All candidates endorsed, with the ex¬ 
ception of governor and State Superin¬ 
tendent of Schools, were elected without 
opposition in the primaries. The governor 
who was elected (Geo. W. P. Hunt) made 
his campaign as against the “conference,” 
making that his issue, bitterly denouncing 
it as held by a “click.” This conference 
was held as an unofficial act, simply as a 
recommendation . 10 

The Practice in New York 

Although New York at the present 
moment does not have a state-wide 
direct primary, nevertheless in her 
past history lessons of general applica¬ 
tion can be read. 

The law of 1913 had invited the 
convocation of pre-primary conven¬ 
tions by its failure to require the draft¬ 
ing of the platforms at conferences 
held after the primaries; instead, it 
expressly stated: 

Nothing contained in this chapter shall 
prevent a party from holding party con¬ 
ventions, to be constituted in such manner 
and to have such powers in relation to 
formulating party platforms and policies 
and the transaction of business relating to 
party affairs, as the rules and regulations 
of the party may provide, not inconsistent 
with the provisions of this chapter. Dele¬ 
gates to any such conventions . . . shall 
not be chosen at official primaries or 
otherwise at public expense . 11 

It was the practice of both parties 
to hold conventions about a month in 
advance of the primaries, to which as 
a rule delegates were formally elected 
by the assembly district organizations 
under conditions which allowed par¬ 
ticipation at least by the members of the 
political clubs within the party. The 
single exception was in the case of the 

10 Letter from the Democratic State Chairman. 

11 Laws 1913, ch. 820, sec. 45. 


Republican State Conference of 1916, 
which was held after the primaries and 
which was constituted mainly of candi¬ 
dates and committeemen. 12 

But, although it was the usual prac¬ 
tice to hold pre-primary conventions, 
it was by no means usual to endorse 
designees by formal action. For the 
most part the understandings were 
tacit. The conventions were impor¬ 
tant as arenas of negotiation, and the 
work that they did in the choice of 
candidates might have been accom¬ 
plished by the party leaders under any 
circumstances, although the physical 
assemblage of local chairmen on the 
broad verandas and in race-track 
-grandstands at Saratoga no doubt 
greatly facilitated the task of con¬ 
solidating the sentiment of party work¬ 
ers in support of a composite primary 
ticket. At first there was a disposition 
to keep the question of nominees off 
the floor of the convention. Thus Mr. 
Whitman, who was described in 1914 
as having the tacit endorsement of the 
assembled leaders, said of the conven¬ 
tion: 

I believe it would be against the best 
interests of the Republican Party if the 

12 This conference was held Sept. 28, 1916, the 
primaries (in which Governor Whitman was re¬ 
nominated after much dissension but without 
serious opposition and in which Mr. Calder and 
Mr. Bacon were engaged in a very close race for 
the senatorial nomination) having taken place 
on Sept. 19. As decided upon by the State 
Executive Committee, the personnel comprised 
Senator Wadsworth, the 150 members of the 
State Committee, the 43 congressional candi¬ 
dates, the 51 state senatorial candidates, the 150 
assembly nominees, the county chairmen, and 1 
delegate from each assembly district, chosen by 
the members of the county committees. N. Y. 
Times, Sept. 14, 1916, p. 4. Comment at the 
time said: “When the platform finally was 
adopted, less than 10 delegates were in the hall, 
and Senator Ogden L. Mills, chairman of the 
resolutions committee, who read the 2,500 word 
document, had an audience mostly of empty 
seats. The great majority of the delegates were 
at dinner.” Ibid., Sept. 29, 1916, p. 4. 


102 


The Annals of the American Academy 


convention should go on record as favoring 
any candidate for a nomination for public 
office in the coming primaries. This has 
been my attitude from the first. Such en¬ 
dorsement would involve an evasion of the 
Direct Primary Act. It would undoubtedly 
be used in the campaign against the candi¬ 
date receiving it . 13 

The Democratic Party was the first 
to take the question of a slate before 
the convention as a whole; the Repub¬ 
lican Party eventually went furthest. 
In 1916, 1918 and again in 1920, the 
Democratic Party used the scheme of 
an informal roll-call, whereby the 
spokesmen of the several county dele¬ 
gations expressed the presumed senti¬ 
ment of their localities regarding a 
candidate for the governorship and, on 
a second calling of the roll, regarding 
possible candidates for the minor 
elective state offices. 14 This practice 
continued, although not without pro¬ 
test; in 1920 it was sustained by a vote 
of 434 to 16. 15 

13 N. Y. Times , Aug. 17, 1914. Mr. Whitman 
was the successful designee for the governorship 
in 1914, 1916 and 1918. In the latter year his 

• supporters were reported to have regular cam¬ 
paign headquarters at the scene of the unofficial 
convention. A press comment just before the 
meeting of the 1914 convention read: “Mr. 
Whitman’s friends and supporters have been 
busy all afternoon and evening in the absorbing 
task of slate-making. As a result, common 
report has it that there is in existence now what 
is known as the ‘Whitman Combination Slate,’ 
as follows. ...” Ibid., Aug. 18, 1916, p. 6. 

14 It was first used in connection with a reput¬ 
edly popular, anti-organization nomination, that 
of Justice Seabury for governorship in 1916, who 
received the indicated preferences of 49 of 62 
county delegations. A press account stated: 
“The conference came to an end without adopt¬ 
ing any address recommending formally a set of 
candidates to the enrolled Democrats who will 
vote in the primaries. In line with the expressed 
preference of the delegates as shown in the roll- 
calls, it is understood that a complete slate was 
determined upon at a conference between Tam¬ 
many Leader Charles F. Murphy and some of 
the up-state Democratic leaders.” N. Y. Times , 
Aug. 12, 1916, pp. 1, 3. 

15 Ah Y. Times, Aug. 4, 1920, p. 1. The 
objector was Mr. (then Mayor) Lunn, who be¬ 


lli 1920 the Republican Party con¬ 
vention went the whole distance. A 
full ticket was voted upon and pre¬ 
sented to the party voters through a 
formal resolution. 16 

Despite the variation in method, 
however, the element of pre-arrange¬ 
ment has been present in New York 
State throughout the history of the 
state-wide direct primary. It is true 
that contests within the state tickets 
have not been wholly lacking: in 1914, 
out of 9 places, 2 were contested in 
Republican primary, 9 in the Demo¬ 
cratic; in 1916, of 10 places, 3 were 
contested in the Republican primary, 
1 in the Democratic; in 1918, of 7 
places, 4 were contested in the Repub¬ 
lican primary, 1 in the Democratic; in 
1920, of 9 places, 5 were contested in 
the Republican primary, and again 
only 1 in the Democratic. Throughout 
the period, however, no designee for 
state-wide office understood at the time 
to have the support of the so-called 
organization, has been defeated for 

came the unsuccessful anti-organization de¬ 
signee for the U. S. senatorial nomination in the 
following primaries, in which he furnished the 
only contest on the state-wide ticket. Just 
before the 1920 Democratic convention, Mr. 
Charles F. Murphy was interviewed with the 
following result: “‘We did not designate two 
years ago,’ he said, after brief silence. ‘ But you 
recommended a ticket, headed by Smith.’ ‘No, 
we didn’t,’ said Mr. Murphy. ‘What did you 
do? ’ was asked. * The convention just called the 
roll of counties to find out whom and what the 
people wanted—that was all,’ said the Tammany 
leader.” N. Y. Times, Aug. 1, 1920, p. 4. 

16 The resolution read: “Whereas, This con¬ 
vention, representing Republican Party of the 
State of New York, while recognizing the right 
of any citizen to enter the primaries to be held 
on Sept. 14, believes that the enrolled voters of 
the party will welcome and approve the advice 
of this convention as to candidates for State 
offices and United States senator; Therefore, be 
it resolved, that this convention proceed to 
recommend to the enrolled voters of the Repub¬ 
lican Party of the State of New York a candidate 
for each of the following offices. ...” N. Y. 
Times, July 29, 1920, p. 2. 



Pre-Primary Conventions 


i 


103 


nomination. 17 This does not prove, of 
course, that the possibilities inherent in 
the direct primary did not profoundly 
influence the decisions arrived at in 
process of pre-arrangement. On the 
other hand, although the New York 
law as it stood between 1914 and 1920 
must be charged with having invited 
pre-primary conventions under condi¬ 
tions that made some pre-arrangement 
well-nigh inevitable, the foregoing ac¬ 
count does not show that, under the 
deep-seated political conditions of the 
state, the fore-stalling of the primary 
would not have been accomplished 
nearly as completely without con¬ 
ventions. 

Attitude of Party Managers 

Although the attitude of party 
managers is not unanimously in favor 
of the establishment of pre-primary 
conventions by law, it is overwhelm¬ 
ingly so. They seem to feel that such 
conferences are essential to the main¬ 
tenance of the solidarity and responsi¬ 
bility of the party. As Lawrence Y. 
Sherman, Republican State Chairman 
of Illinois expresses it: 

Party solidarity and responsibility are 
practically destroyed in this state. The 
processes of disintegration are detrimental 
to good government reflected in the election 
of partisan officers. It is recognized that a 
long measure of party responsibility is the 
means of fairly good government. If the 
responsibility is absent or broken down, it 
is my observation that the kind of candi¬ 
dates nominated or elected correspondingly 
are of a lower level. It leads to the absence 
of first-class men on the ticket. The pre- 
primary convention is one way of restoring 
party responsibility. 

To those who adhere to the Hughes 

17 H. Feldman, “The Direct Primary in New 
York State,” American Political Science Review , 
Aug. 1917, vol. XI, no. 3, pp. 494-518. For 
later figures, see the informing article by R. S. 
Boots, “New York’s Imperfect Primary,” in 
N. Y . Evening Post, March 2, 1921. 


plan this will seem but a rational de¬ 
mand; to those who look upon the 
direct primary as the means of destroy¬ 
ing all advantage that the leaders 
enjoy by virtue of their positions, it 
will seem an attempt of the dominant 
clique to restore itself to power. 

Conclusions • 

At any rate, it can be said that the 
direct primary in its present form has 
made party leadership more responsi¬ 
ble than it ever was before. Even 
in those states in which a pre¬ 
primary nominating convention has 
been established by law, the action 
of the convention is not the final 
^authority, and in the court of final 
appeal that action has been frequently 
reversed. Formal action endorsing 
any particular slate is not taken in any 
of the states which hold a pre-primary 
convention for the purpose of formulat¬ 
ing party principles. If tacit under¬ 
standings are arrived at and doubtless 
they are, ratification by the voters is 
not automatic. In two of the states 
which place the convocation of con¬ 
ventions in the hands of party com¬ 
mittees, the party managers seem to 
rule with their old-time effectiveness. 
Of only three other states can this be 
said. In eight of the eleven states 
which have held both pre- and post- 
primary conventions the action of the 
pre-primary conference is unusual. 
It can hardly be said on the basis of 
these five states that the direct pri¬ 
mary has failed to accomplish at least 
the hopes of those who thought of it as 
an instrument with which to make 
party leadership more responsive to 
popular demand. If this survey indi¬ 
cates anything, it indicates that the 
direct primary, although eliminating 
neither “bossism” nor “invisible gov¬ 
ernment,” has at any rate made party 
leadership more largely subject to 
popular control. 


104 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Note.—I t should be stated that the 
chief basis for the information con¬ 
tained in this article was a question¬ 
naire sent out to the various state 
chairmen. No attempt has been made, 


except in the case of New York, to go 
behind their replies. A study of elec¬ 
tion contests might lead to deductions 
that would modify somewhat the con¬ 
clusions as here presented. 


Proportional Representation in the United States 

Its Spread, Principles of Operation, Relation to Direct 

Primaries, and General Results 

By C. G. Hoag 

Secretary, Proportional Representation League 


T HOUGH cumulative voting and 
the limited vote, both of which 
assure some representation to the 
leading minority party, were intro¬ 
duced for certain public elections, 
notably in Illinois and Pennsylvania 
some two generations ago, it was 
not until 1915 that a thorough-going 
system of proportional representation 
was adopted for a public election in 
the United States. In August of 
that year Ashtabula, Ohio, adopted 
the “single transferable vote” or 
“Hare system” of proportional repre¬ 
sentation—“P. R.” as it is called 
for short—at the polls, as an amend¬ 
ment to its new city manager charter 
which had been adopted on November 
3, 1914. The vote for the amendment 
was 588 to 400. The system was 
applied to the election of seven council- 
men at large. 

Cities 

Boulder, Colorado, adopted pro¬ 
portional representation for its council 
on October 30, 1917. The Boulder 
council has nine members. Three are 
elected at large every two years for a 
term of six years. The election of so 
small a number together did not have 
the approval of the Proportional Repre¬ 
sentation League: the leaders of that 
organization would have preferred the 
election of all nine together. 

P. R. was adopted by Kalamazoo, 
Michigan, on February 4, 1918, by a 
vote of 2,403 to 659, for the election 
at large of its commission of seven 


members. After the new system had 
been used in two elections it was 
thrown out by a decision of the Su¬ 
preme Court of Michigan, rendered 
September 30, 1920. The court held 
that the Hare system violated the 
clause of the state constitution which 
declares that “in all elections every 

. . . [Here qualified voters are de¬ 
fined] shall be an elector and entitled 
to vote. . . .” 

Proportional representation was 
adopted on February 11, 1921, for 
the council of West Hartford, Con¬ 
necticut, by vote of that body itself 
under authority given it by special act 
of the legislature. West Hartford is 
a fine residential suburb of Hartford. 
The system is applied to the election of 
fifteen councilmen from four districts, 
the number elected from the districts 
being five, one, four, and five. As 
applied in the Second District, where 
only one member is elected, the system 
works out as a preferential majority 
system. The splitting up of the town 
thus into districts was not in accord¬ 
ance with the recommendations of the 
Proportional Representation League, 
which would have preferred election 
at large. The first adoption of the 
system was for one election only.* 
After the first election, however, the 
council voted—on February 6, 1922— 
to continue its use. 

Sacramento, California, adopted the 
proportional system for its council 
of nine November 30, 1920. The vote 
was 7,962 to 1,587. The members are 


105 


106 


The Annals of the American Academy 


elected all together at large. The 
first election was held on May 3, 1921. 
Soon afterwards action was taken by 
Mr. James H. Devine, one of the de¬ 
feated candidates, to have the courts 
declare the system contrary to the 
constitution of California. The lower 
court sustained the system. On Oc¬ 
tober 23, 1922, however, the Appellate 
Court, to which Mr. Devine appealed, 
handed down a decision declaring the 
system unconstitutional. On Decem¬ 
ber 22 the Supreme Court of the state 
denied the petition for the transfer of 
the case to its jurisdiction. The mem¬ 
bers of the council will be allowed to 
finish out their terms, which end in 
December, 1923. 

The most striking advance of pro¬ 
portional representation in this coun¬ 
try since the first election under the 
system in Ashtabula in 1915, was its 
adoption by Cleveland on November 8, 
1921, in connection with the city 
manager plan. The vote was 77,888 
to 58,204. In Cleveland, the system 
is to be applied to the election of a 
council of twenty-five from four dis¬ 
tricts: from the West Side, 7; from the 
Central District, 6; from the South 
Side, 5; and from the East Side, 7. 
The new election system is part of a 
very comprehensive amendment to 
the Cleveland home rule charter, 
which is to all intents and purposes 
an entirely new charter. The new 
plan of government goes into operation 
January 1, 1924, the first election 
being held on November 6, 1923. 

Used with City Manager Plan 

It is significant that all these cities 
which have decided to use the pro¬ 
portional system have adopted it in 
connection with the manager plan 
of government. In my opinion, for 
reasons set forth in the latter part of 
this article, this is in accordance with 
sound political theory. 


The Single Transferable Vote 

It is important also to note that the 
system of proportional representation 
adopted by all these American cities 
is the “single transferable vote” or 
“Hare system.” Strangely enough, 
too, no other system than this single 
transferable vote has been adopted for 
public elections in any other English- 
speaking country, though rival systems, 
especially the party list system, have 
spread with great rapidity in recent 
years over continental Europe and 
some other parts of the world. 

The chief difference, so far as politi¬ 
cal effects are concerned, between the 
single transferable vote and the list 
system is that the former gives the 
voter far more freedom than the latter 
to make his will effective even when 
he consults only his own real prefer¬ 
ences without being restricted by party 
lines and without regard to any candi¬ 
date’s supposed strength or weakness. 
It is this greater freedom of the voter 
under the single transferable vote 
that makes the system effective not 
only in giving the right number of 
seats in the representative body to 
each section of public opinion but 
also in freeing the voter from thraldom 
to political “machines.” 

The main principles of the single 
transferable vote are easily explained. 
The members of the representative 
body are elected either all together at 
large, as in the case of the council of 
a small or medium-sized city, or in 
districts each of which is large enough 
to elect several. No matter how many 
members are being elected in a voter’s 
district, he has but one vote. If a 
sufficient number of votes—a quota, 
as it is called—support a candidate, 
he is elected. If seven are being 
elected together, the perfect quota 
would be, of course, one seventh of all 
who have voted. For practical reasons. 


Proportional Representation in the United States 


107 


however, a slightly smaller number, 
namely, barely more than one eighth 
of all who have voted, is used as the 
quota. The voter expresses his vote 
by putting the figure 1 opposite the 
name of his favorite candidate. He is, 
however, allowed and encouraged also 
to express his second and lower choices 
by the figures 2, 3, etc.—as many or as 
few such lower choices as he pleases. 
At the voting precincts only the first 
choices are counted. The ballots of 
the entire multi-member district are 
brought together from the precincts 
to a central counting place. The 
count is then completed in accordance 
with definite rules which work out 
in causing each ballot to help, if possi¬ 
ble, in the election of one candidate— 
in every case the candidate marked 
as most desired by the voter among 
those candidates who could possibly 
be helped to election by it. Thus each 
member of the body is elected by a 
quota of voters who are united, con¬ 
sidering the actual alignments revealed 
by the ballots, in the desire to elect 
the candidate whom in fact they do 
elect. 

As a quota of votes is required for 
the election of each member — I dis¬ 
regard certain exceptions — no party or 
group can elect more members than it 
polls quotas of votes. And, on the 
other hand, any group of voters which 
polls a quota of votes or more is sure 
to elect the member or members it 
deserves. 

Illustration of Political Effects 

The political effects of the trans¬ 
ferability of the vote, which are quite 
distinct from the proportional effects 
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, 
may be illustrated by a single example. 
Suppose seven councilmen were being 
elected together, and suppose each 
voter had only one vote and it was 
not transferable. In that case a po¬ 


litical party which expected to poll 
three-sevenths of the total vote (or 
at least more than three-eighths, 
which is the same thing in effect), 
would nominate only three candidates 
and would read out of the party any of 
its members who nominated rivals to 
those three. For to nominate rivals 
to the three in that case would be to 
“split the party vote” and expose 
the party to possible disaster. In the 
election, therefore, the voters would 
have to take their choices among the 
“regular” candidates of the several 
parties. 

Now suppose all the conditions to be 
the same except that the voter is al¬ 
lowed to indicate on his ballot as many 
choices as he pleases, and that those 
who count the ballots are to make effec¬ 
tive the highest of his choices that can 
be made effective. In this case inde¬ 
pendent members of the party whose 
managers nominated three candidates 
(having in the transferable ballot the 
means of conducting at the election 
itself a competition within the party for 
the three places which the party may 
expect to win), will feel quite free to 
nominate rivals to the “machine” can¬ 
didates of the party. Thus the trans¬ 
ferable vote means real. competition 
within each party, without any reduc¬ 
tion of the party’s strength as a whole. 
It therefore changes the whole face of 
politics, requiring of political managers 
not the mere capturing of places on 
party slates, but genuine leadership. 

Relation between Proportional 
Representation and Direct 
Primary 

The relation between proportional 
representation with the single trans¬ 
ferable vote and the direct primary 
will now be clear. The direct primary 
came into existence only because our 
old system of balloting, permitting the 
voter as it did to express only one 



108 


The Annals of the American Academy 


choice for each office, afforded no 
opportunity at the final election for 
free competition within a party for 
the offices which the party’s total 
vote might enable it to win. A party 
which in the final election ran more 
candidates than it could elect, that is, 
more than were to be elected, courted 
disaster, for splitting the party vote 
meant throwing votes away. The 
resulting necessity of restricting nom¬ 
inations meant, in turn, the virtual 
control of politics by those who con¬ 
trolled the nominations of the two 
great parties. The ordinary independ¬ 
ent citizen had, it is true, the legal 
right to vote; but of what practical 
value was this right if he had nobody 
to vote for, with any likelihood of 
electing them, except machine-picked 
Republicans and machine-picked 
Democrats? Helpless as they were un¬ 
der such conditions, the voters demand¬ 
ed—what naturally seemed to them 
the only means of relief—a system of 
nominating candidates by direct and 
legally regulated primary elections. 

The failure of the direct primary 
system to give the voters all the relief 
they sought was not, of course, sur¬ 
prising to those who had studied the 
effects of the old single-shot vote as 
compared with those of the transferable 
vote. Suppose you were sending some 
distance for fruit and did not know 
what kinds might be available in 
the market: if you were restricted to 
naming a single kind of fruit, your 
messenger would very likely return 
empty-handed. In sending for fruit, 
however, you are not in fact restricted 
thus: there is nothing to prevent your 
naming several kinds in the order of 
your preference, with directions to the 
messenger that only one—your high¬ 
est choice among the kinds available 
—is to be brought. But in voting, 
under the old single-shot system, 
though there may be several candidates 


for a single office, you are restricted 
to the expression of only one choice. 
Do away with that restriction and the 
primary election becomes superfluous. 
Keep that restriction, and even the 
troublesome and expensive primary is 
inadequate to give the voter real free¬ 
dom. For, after all, the primary does 
nothing more than carry the same old 
difficulty one step further back: offer¬ 
ing the voters at the primary itself 
only the same old single-shot ballot, it 
often presents to him only the same 
old dilemma between voting for a can¬ 
didate he really wants and voting 
for the less objectionable of the two 
who have some chance of winning. 
The direct primary system, though 
naturally advocated as the best remedy 
for machine domination by leaders of 
public opinion not familiar with the 
transferable vote, and though actually 
helpful in many notable cases in giving 
the people control of public affairs, 
was not and is not the true remedy. 
The true remedy is the transferable 
vote. 

Application of Transferable Vote 

But how, if the transferable vote 
was to be used, is it to be applied? 
It would be possible, of course, to apply 
it not only to the policy-determining 
body, as is done in the American cities 
which have adopted it, but also sepa¬ 
rately, as a majority system, to every 
other office now filled at the polls. And 
that would be preferable, certainly, 
to the two single-shot elections—the 
final one and the primary—which we 
now have. But it would not give the 
voters complete relief. Even with the 
transferable vote in their hands, the 
rank and file of our voters are not in a 
position to choose wisely among a 
multitute of candidates for admin¬ 
istrative as well as deliberative posi¬ 
tions. The one thing they are in a 
position to do, if provided with the 


Proportional Representation in the United States 


109 


right sort of ballot, is to choose spokes¬ 
men to represent them, in a council 
or a legislature, in the determination of 
general policies and the selection and 
replacement of chief administrators. 
In the rest of the government they 
can have their way most surely by 
holding their spokesmen responsible 
for making the right decisions. It 
was therefore quite right, in my opin¬ 
ion, when some of our cities became 
ready to adopt the transferable vote, 
for them not to apply it as a majority 
system to administrative offices but 
to apply it as a quota or proportional 
system to the council only, holding 
that body responsible for all the rest 
of the government. To have elected 
a truly representative council and then 
to have elected other city officials 
more or less independent of that 
body would have been only to divide 
the responsibility and confuse the 
issues. 

Success of Plan 

As the number of our cities which 
have been actually governed under 
this plan is now five and as several of 
them have been under the plan from 
two to six years, it is interesting to 
inquire how they have gotten along. 
On this point I cannot claim to be 
a dispassionate observer. But there 
seems to be enough evidence, of a 
wholly unprejudiced character, to war¬ 
rant us in saying that everywhere the 
plan has been successful and that in 
some of the cities its benefits have been 
very marked. After the first election 
in Ashtabula, it is true, the new voting 
system was blamed by some for the 
bad deadlock of the council in choosing 
the first city manager, for its final 
choice of one of its own members, and 
for the shooting of a man in a barroom 
fight later by one of the councilmen. 
But none of these unfortunate oc¬ 
currences was directly connected with 


the method of voting, and the sub¬ 
sequent experience of Ashtabula seems 
to indicate that that method is gener¬ 
ally approved by leading citizens of 
all elements. This experience, con¬ 
sidered from two very different points 
of view, is covered by the following 
statements made after the third P. R. 
election by Mr. P. C. Remick, former 
President of the Ashtabula Chamber of 
Commerce, and by Mr. Charles G. 
Nelson, former President of the Ashta¬ 
bula Central Labor Union. Mr. Rem¬ 
ick: “After watching the results of 
our three elections under the Hare 
system, I am pleased with the results. 
In each case the best of the candidates 
have been elected. ,, Mr. Nelson: “I 
believe it is the fairest method of 
election ever used.” The success of 
the system in Ashtabula is confirmed 
strongly also by the city’s rejection at 
the polls in 1920 of a proposal to do 
away with it, and by its adoption in 
1921, in the light of Ashtabula’s ex¬ 
perience, by the neighboring city of 
Cleveland. 

In Sacramento nearly all elements 
expressed themselves favorably after 
the first election in 1921. The Star 
(May 5th): “On every hand satisfac¬ 
tion is being expressed in no uncertain 
terms.” The Union (May 5th): “The 
results obtained May 3rd indicate that 
gangsters, politicians, and advocates 
of mass voting are completely stag¬ 
gered.” The government of Sacramento 
under the new charter has been, it is 
reported, highly efficient and successful; 
and according to a statement made 
after the close of the first calendar year 
by Mr. Irvin Engler, Assistant Secre¬ 
tary of the Sacramento Chamber of 
Commerce, “Working in harmony, 
thoroughly representative, and giving 
the manager support in progressive 
movements, the council has had a con¬ 
spicuous part in the results attained.” 
On December 23, the day after the 


110 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Supreme Court’s refusal to re-hear the 
case on the constitutionality of P. R., 
the Sacramento Star said editorially: 
“Men who were skeptical about the 
plan when it was adopted were enthu¬ 
siastic over its merits after they saw 
it in operation. . . . Sacramento will 
again in time have proportional repre¬ 
sentation voting, as will every other 
governmental group in the United 
States.” 

Of the working of P. R. in the other 
American cities which have tried it, 
only favorable reports have come to 


my notice. On account of its effects 
where it has been tried and the need 
that is felt in some cities, governed 
under the manager plan, which lack 
it, the National Municipal League now 
recommends it for all cities governed 
under that plan. It was to the need 
of P. R. in such cities, indeed, that the 
President of the National Municipal 
League, Colonel Henry M. Waite, 
the distinguished first city manager 
of Dayton, devoted his annual address 
as president of that body last No¬ 
vember. 


Prevention of Minority Nominations for State 
Offices in the Direct Primary 

By Benj. H. Williams, Ph.D. 

University of Pennsylvania 


T HE typical state-wide direct pri¬ 
mary law in this country provides 
for plurality nominations. Under such 
a law the candidate who receives the 
highest number of votes, whether this 
number is a majority or not, secures the 
nomination. The operation of the 
primary law so far has shown that this 
plurality is an actual majority in by far 
the greater number of cases. But 
there is always the possibility that in a 
divided field a candidate who repre¬ 
sents the views of a minority of the 
voters may be successful. An example 
of this may be taken from the primary 
elections of 1922. In a congressional 
district in a western state the congress¬ 
man seeking renomination was con¬ 
fronted with strong opposition because 
he had voted against the soldier’s bonus 
in the House of Representatives a short 
time before the primary election. His 
opponents could not, however, confine 
their opposition to one candidate. Two 
ex-soldiers and pro-bonus men entered 
the lists. The results were as follows: 


Incumbent. 15,515 

Ex-soldier No. 1. 14,346 

Ex-soldier No. 2. 10,416 


Had only one ex-soldier opposed the 
congressman in that district, the bonus 
advocates would have been victorious 
without question. This possibility 
that where a plurality is sufficient to 
nominate, the final result may be di¬ 
rectly opposite to that desired by the 
majority of the voters, has caused some 
concern among friends of the law, and 
several devices have been introduced 
in the attempt to obviate this feature. 

These methods are of three general 


types, which may be described as the 
second primary, the preferential vote 
and the resort to a convention where 
no candidate in the primary has re¬ 
ceived a majority or a certain high 
percentage of the vote. 

The Second Primary 

The second primary election resem¬ 
bles the system which was generally 
used some years ago in European coun¬ 
tries, where, with the multiplicity of 
parties, it was found wise to guard 
against minority control by holding a 
second election, in case no candidate 
received a majority. In this country 
the second election has been adopted in 
the primary laws of several southern 
states. In those states the domination 
of the Democratic Party has made 
nomination equivalent to election, and 
it has been considered vital that no or¬ 
ganized minority should gain control of 
that Party. This type of law provides 
that where no candidate receives a 
majority of votes, a second primary 
shall be held in which the names of the 
two highest shall be placed on the ballot. 
The winner of the second primary elec¬ 
tion becomes the party candidate. 
Provision is usually made that when 
one of the two highest candidates in the 
first primary does not desire to con¬ 
tinue his candidacy, the other shall be 
declared to be the nominee. The 
second primary is found in Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas 
and Louisiana. In the case of the latter 
state the second election system was in 
force for several years and was abol¬ 
ished for a system of preferential vote. 





112 


The Annals of the American Academy 


This was in turn abolished and the 
state came back in 1921 to the second 
election method with the provision, 
however, that the second primary is to 
be held only in case no candidate for 
the office of governor receives a major¬ 
ity in the first primary. In Tennessee 
it is provided that in case no candidate 
receives a majority in the first primary, 
a second one may be held if the com¬ 
mittee or other governing authority of 
the party shall see fit. 

The advantage of this method lies in 
the opportunity it gives for a clear-cut 
contest between the two leading fac¬ 
tions in the party, a contest which can 
be devoted to state issues. It presents 
a simple task to the voter. The re¬ 
sults, so far as the avoiding of minority 
nominations is concerned, are quite 
satisfactory. But the holding of an 
additional primary is open to obvious 
objections. The nomination and elec¬ 
tion system is already costly, both to 
the candidates and to the state. The 
large expenses incurred in a few recent 
primaries have been brought dramati¬ 
cally before the public, and have shown 
that men of wealth possess a distinct 
advantage in seeking nominations at 
the hands of the voters. The drain on 
the state treasury is a much-used argu¬ 
ment in the movement for the repeal of 
the primary. The burden upon the 
public of time and effort spent during 
the campaign has also been great. It 
is not likely that in this era of retrench¬ 
ment, a system which necessitates 
three public campaigns and three trips 
to the polls by busy voters to select one 
set of officers, will find much favor. It 
will probably not spread beyond the 
southern states where it is believed to 
be a necessity. 

A modification of the second election 
system exists in the state of Georgia, 
where it is combined with the county 
unit system of voting. The candidate 
for the nomination who receives the 


highest number of votes in any county, 
is entitled to the entire vote of that 
county, on the basis of two votes for 
every representative to which the 
county is entitled in the lower house of 
the General Assembly. In nomina¬ 
tions for governor and United States 
senator, a candidate must receive an 
absolute majority of county unit votes 
to be successful. If no candidate re¬ 
ceives a majority, a second election on 
the county unit basis is held between 
the highest two. As may be seen, it is 
quite possible for a minority candidate 
to be successful under such a system, 
just as it is possible for a presidential 
candidate to receive a majority vote of 
the presidential electors without receiv¬ 
ing a majority of the popular vote. 
This is, however, extremely unlikely, 
and under the Georgia law there has 
been only one case in which the suc¬ 
cessful candidate has not received a 
majority of the popular vote, and in 
that case he had received more popular 
votes than any other candidate. 

The Preferential Vote 

The second device for preventing 
minority nominations is the preferential 
vote. By this method, where there are 
three or more candidates for one nomi¬ 
nation, the voter is given an opportu¬ 
nity to express his first and second 
choices. Should no candidate receive 
a majority of first choices, all but the 
two highest candidates are eliminated, 
and the second choices expressed for 
these two are added to their first 
choices. The one with the greater 
number of first and second choices com¬ 
bined receives the nomination. This 
method is provided for in Alabama and 
Florida with one difference. In Ala¬ 
bama, in the optional primary law the 
second choices are counted from all of 
the ballots, while in Florida, the second 
choices on the ballots of the eliminated 
candidates only are counted. 


Prevention of Minority Nominations in the Direct Primary 113 


The chief advantage of the preferen¬ 
tial system over the second election 
plan is in the saving of expense and 
campaign effort. Viewed from a the¬ 
oretical standpoint, this method has an 
unquestionably strong appeal. A num¬ 
ber of close students of the subject have 
seen in it a satisfactory solution to the 
problem of minority nominations. But 
when put to the test of actual experi¬ 
ence it has been found to be unwork¬ 
able. The American voter has not 
been willing to make the effort neces¬ 
sary to use this more complicated 
method of expressing his choice, and 
confusion has resulted. In some cases 
the voter, when confronted by the two 
choice ballot, has marked his first 
choice for two candidates and in others 
his first and second choice for the same 
candidate. In the great majority of 
cases, however, he has not taken the 
trouble to register his second choice. 
Out of 664,559 opportunities to express 
a second choice in the Indiana pri¬ 
maries of 1916, the voter took advan¬ 
tage of this privilege in only 155,123 
instances, or 23 per cent of the whole 
number. Although there were thirty- 
five contests in which second choices 
could have been expressed, and of 
these there were twenty-four instances 
in which no candidate received a major¬ 
ity, yet the distribution of second- 
choice votes did not affect the result in 
a single case. 1 When the voters are 
indifferent in marking their second 
choices, minority nominations are by 
no means prevented. Under the brief 
Louisiana experience with this form, it 
was found that in every case where 
there was not a majority of first choices 
for one candidate, the system resulted 
in nomination by minorities. The list 
of states which have tried it and found 
it lacking is impressive. Idaho, Indi- 

i" The Direct Primary in Indiana” by Charles 
Kettleborough, National Municipal Review, Vol. 
JO, p. 166. 


ana, North Dakota, Louisiana, Wash¬ 
ington and Wisconsin have all used this 
method and thrown it into the discard. 
It can hardly be recommended as a 
satisfactory solution to the problem. 

A modification of the preferential 
vote with the county unit and conven¬ 
tion system is found in Maryland. 
Here the voters in each county express 
their first and second choices for party 
nominees for state offices. At the 
same time they elect delegates to the 
state convention. These delegates are 
instructed to support in the conven¬ 
tion the first choice, and, failing in 
that, the second choice of the voters of 
the county for each state office. These 
first and second choices of the county 
voters are determined by a complicated 
system of transferring ballots, some¬ 
what akin to the Hare system of pro¬ 
portional representation. The method 
is too elaborate to describe here. It is 
sufficient to say that it guards against 
the domination of a minority in each 
county; but for the same reason as ex¬ 
pressed in the Georgia case, it does not 
prevent the nomination of candidates 
who represent only minorities in the 
state at large. On the contrary, the 
system gives the city of Baltimore such 
inadequate representation in the con¬ 
vention that it directly encourages mi¬ 
nority nomination. It was evidently in¬ 
tended to give the other counties of the 
state a method of offsetting the popular 
majorities that might be rolled up in 
Baltimore. 

Resort to the Convention 

The third system of throwing the 
nomination into a convention if no 
candidate receives a majority in the 
primaries, likewise does not prevent the 
success of candidates who may repre¬ 
sent only a minority of voters. An 
examination of several instances in 
which candidates have been both before 
the primary and before the convention, 


114 


The Annals of the American Academy 


shows that a convention is likely to 
select a candidate who represents only 
a minority of the popular votes of the 
party, and sometimes a very small 
minority at that. In Indiana, the law 
provides that in nominations for gov¬ 
ernor and United States senator, the 
convention shall make the selection 
where no candidate receives a majority 
in the primary election. 

In Iowa, unless some one candidate 
receives 35 per cent of the total vote 
cast for candidates for that particular 
nomination, the convention is called 
upon to make the choice. The Iowa 
experience under this law shows that in 
by far the greater number of cases the 
leading candidate has secured an actual 
majority; and even where he has not 
obtained a majority he has been gener¬ 
ally able to obtain the required 35 per 
cent. The convention has had but few 
nominations to make and in only three 
of those instances has it set aside the 
plurality candidate for another. These 
three cases were in the nomination for 
the less important state offices. It 
may thus be seen that the Iowa law has 
had but little effect upon the results in 
that state. 

The 1922 nominations in Iowa 
showed that under this law a popular 
candidate, who does not stand in well 
with the organization and who could 
not hope to succeed in the convention, 
may find himself confronted in the pri¬ 
mary by a large number of opponents 
sent into the field to cut into his 
strength and thereby keep him under 
the 35 per cent quota. Thus Mr. 
Brookhart, who was popular with the 
rank and file of the Republican Party 
in that state, but who was out of sym¬ 
pathy with the party organization, was 
opposed by five rivals in the race for 
the senatorial nomination. Not one of 
these five had a chance for success. 
They were put into the race for 
the purpose of dividing Brookhart’s 


strength in the farmer, labor, soldier 
and urban groups in the state, with the 
hope that he might receive less than 35 
per cent of the vote. The result was as 
follows: 

Brookhart. 133,102 

Frances. 38,691 

Pickett. 51,047 

Stanley. 12,593 

Sweet. 35,406 

Thorne. 52,783 

Total. 323,622 

Brookhart’s vote amounted to 41 per 
cent of the total, which was sufficient 
to nominate. Although he received a 
plurality which was tremendous in its 
proportions, his margin of success was 
not great. Had the provisions of the 
Indiana law requiring a majority been 
in effect, the nomination would have 
been thrown into a convention, where 
Brookhart’s chances of success would 
have been at least greatly diminished, 
if indeed he would have had any chance 
at all. 

The Iowa provision has accomplished 
practically nothing of a beneficial char¬ 
acter. Moreover, the last election has 
shown the possibilities of political 
manipulation to defeat the popular will. 
To this extent it is contrary to the 
spirit of the direct primary. The 
Indiana law embodies this objection¬ 
able feature to even a greater degree. 

In North Dakota should no candi¬ 
date for a party nomination receive as 
much as 25 per cent of the average 
total vote cast for the candidate for gov¬ 
ernor, secretary of state and attorney 
general of that party at the last general 
election, the law provides that no nom¬ 
ination shall be made for that office. 

An Extra-Legal Remedy: 

Bi-Factionalism in State Parties 

A review of the provisions of the 
primary laws which attempt to obviate 
minority nominations shows that thus 
far no type of law, which is likely to be 










Prevention of Minority Nominations in the Direct Primary 115 


generally acceptable, has been devel¬ 
oped. The second election is costly; 
the preferential vote is confusing and 
ineffective; and the choice by a con¬ 
vention as an alternative, is beneficial 
to the organization as opposed to 
independent elements and does not 
prevent minority nominations. 

A solution of the problem both con¬ 
venient and effective may be seen in the 
extra-legal efforts which are being put 
forward with increasing results to nar¬ 
row the field in the primary election to 
the two principal candidates represent¬ 
ing the opposing factions in the party. 
The American mind has demanded 
simplicity in politics. It has not 
tolerated the refinements in political 
beliefs which have made six or seven 
important parties possible in European 
countries. We have developed the bi¬ 
party system. There is much evi¬ 
dence to the effect that the numerous 
factions and candidates which have 
sometimes appeared under the direct 
primary will be likewise, and for the 
same reasons, replaced by a bi-factional 
system wherever there are any real 
issues to be fought out in state politics. 
Where issues are scarce and the contest 
is merely between office seekers, there 
will still be numerous candidates. In 
such a case little harm can be done by a 
plurality choice. But where some vital 
question of government is under dis¬ 
cussion, the organization of factions 
into two rival camps seems to be the 
American solution to the problem of 
minority control. 

Examples of this are plentiful, and 
two are here chosen from the primaries 
of 1922 for purposes of illustration. 
The Pennsylvania campaign for the 


Republican nomination for governor 
opened with many aspirants seeking 
the honor. The organization forces 
first began to eliminate the various 
gubernatorial possibilities until they 
narrowed the field to one man. This 
man was then opposed by two strong 
independent candidates. As the cam¬ 
paign wore on and it became evident 
that neither of the independents could 
hope to be successful so long as they 
were both in the field, one of them with¬ 
drew. The primary then became a 
clear-cut bi-factional contest between 
independents and organization. 

The contest for the Republican 
nomination for governor in the state 
of Oregon began with no particular 
issues, aside from efficiency and econ¬ 
omy, which was favored by all six men 
who were seeking the nomination. As 
the campaign progressed the Ku Klux 
Klan issue was forced into the con¬ 
troversy. The result was that the 
voters deserted the standards of four 
of the candidates and grouped them¬ 
selves around either Governor Olcott, 
who was opposed to the Klan, or Sena¬ 
tor Hall, who was favorable to it. 
Thus, as soon as an issue was brought 
into the contest, it became a bi-fac- 
tional fight. It is this tendency of 
American voters to form into two 
groups which has caused the plurality 
election to be retained in the United 
States, when it has been generally 
abandoned in continental Europe. 
Municipal elections may form an excep¬ 
tion to this rule. But in state politics 
it is this same tendency which has made 
the plurality primary tolerable, and, in 
fact, preferable to any other method 
which has thus far been devised. 


The California Direct Primary 

By Victor J. West 

Professor of Political Science, Stanford University 


T HE California direct primary has 
not escaped the wave of criticism 
which has risen over the whole country 
against that method of nominating 
candidates for public office. Indeed, 
the California direct primary has been 
criticized severely ever since the law 
establishing its use was adopted in 
1909. It has pleased neither its friends 
nor its enemies. Each year’s experi¬ 
ence has revealed some defect in the 
system, and the law has had to be 
amended, or repealed and reenacted in 
revised form every time the legislature 
has met. Even now, after a dozen 
years, the system while approved in 
the main, does not wholly satisfy the 
people of the state. 

Two Currents of Criticism 

In the last few years two currents of 
criticism have been apparent. One of 
these manifests itself in a demand that 
the direct primary be abolished and the 
convention system reestablished. This 
attitude is taken generally by the more 
conservative interests in the state and 
is expressed through the columns of 
some newspapers which have been con¬ 
sistently opposed to direct nominations 
from the beginning. The Los Angeles 
Times has opposed the California direct 
primary chiefly on the ground that 
candidates are nominated by less than 
a majority of a party; that candidates 
of a party are nominated by the voters 
of another party; and that the law oc¬ 
casionally actually defeats the will of 
the voters of a party. 1 The San Diego 
Union has opposed it on much the 
same ground. 2 The San Francisco 

1 The Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1918. 

2 The San Diego Union, September 20, 1918. 


Chronicle opposes the direct primary on 
the ground that this method of nomina¬ 
tion has not caused an improvement in 
the character of office-holders. 3 The 
Democratic national committeeman 
for California is also reported to have 
strongly urged the restoration of the 
convention system. 4 He suggested 
that nominations for the primaries be 
made by party conventions instead of 
by petition. Others have advocated a 
return to the convention on the ground 
that the number of voters participating 
in the direct primary has been so small 
as to indicate no genuine public interest 
in the nominating procedure. 

The second attitude toward the 
direct primary is that it should be con¬ 
tinued, but made completely non-parti¬ 
san. This, of course, is not a criticism 
of the direct primary but of the whole 
idea of partisan elections. This line of 
attack on the electoral system is more 
likely to succeed than the other. In 
fact there has been a tendency in Cali¬ 
fornia in favor of abandoning the party 
label in state and local elections. Since 
1913 all county and other local offices 
and all school and judicial offices have 
been on a non-partisan basis. 6 Efforts 
made since then to have the rest of the 
state officers chosen the same way have 
failed. In 1915 the legislature passed 
an act which made all offices except 
United States senator, representative 
in Congress, presidential elector, and 
party committeeman non-partisan. 6 

3 The San Francisco Chronicle, December 29 
1918. 

4 The San Francisco Chronicle , December 25 
1918. 

6 California Statutes, 1911, Ch. 398; 1913, Ch. 
690. 

6 California Statutes, 1915, Ch. 135. 


116 


The California Direct Primary 


117 


The measure was submitted to refer¬ 
endum and at a special election held 
October 26, 1915, was defeated by a 
vote of 112,681 to 156,967, in a total 
registration of 1,219,345. 7 Since then 
there has been no attempt to make 
state elections entirely non-partisan. 
Indeed, so far as the legislature is con¬ 
cerned, all of the proposals have been 
in the direction of greater partisanship 
in the primary. It should be pointed 
out, however, that even the offices 
filled on a nominally partisan basis are 
in fact largely non-partisan, because 
many persons take advantage of the 
opportunity offered by the primary law 
to become candidates of more than one 
party. A majority of the members of 
the state legislature of 1921 were unop¬ 
posed for election, having been nomi¬ 
nated by two and often three or more 
parties for the same office. The same 
thing is true of members elected in 
November, 1922. Nine out of the 
eleven members of the California dele¬ 
gation in the House of Representatives 
in the newly elected 68th Congress, 
were candidates of both Democratic 
and Republican Parties. Some of the 
undesirable results from trying to “use 
a partisan primary non-partisanly,” 8 
will be touched upon later. The situa¬ 
tion is noted here because it shows why 
there has been no emphatic demand for 
non-partisan elections, and at the same 
time indicates how easy it would be to 
make the whole state government non¬ 
partisan if it were undertaken with 
determination. 

Advantages of Direct Primary 

It would hardly do to assert that 
these two attitudes divide all of the 
citizens of California. The general run 
of voters take the direct primary as a 
fixed institution. It is quite gener- 

7 F. Hichborn: Story of the California Legisla¬ 
ture of 1921, p. 222 (1922). 

• The Fresno Republican, September 4, 1918. 


ally conceded that in spite of criticism a 
law to abolish the direct primary and 
substitute the convention system if 
submitted to popular vote would be 
defeated overwhelmingly. Moreover, 
certain features of the California pri¬ 
mary are evidently satisfactory. For 
example, the time of holding the pri¬ 
mary—the last Tuesday in August, 
i.e ., about two months before the elec¬ 
tion—seems to be a convenient time. 
The form of ballot is unobjectionable, 
and the provisions for counting the 
ballots, canvassing the returns, and 
certifying the results, and for recounts 
and contests are apparently adequate. 
The fee which is paid by a candidate 
whqn his nomination papers are filed is 
not exorbitant. It is $25 for candi¬ 
dates for representative in Congress 
and for offices voted for in districts 
comprising more than one county 
(except member of state senate or 
assembly); $50 for candidates for state 
offices and for United States senator, 
and for all other offices it is $10. 9 

Some Technical Defects and 
Difficulties 

Nomination in the partisan primaries 
is by plurality vote and some reaction¬ 
aries profess to find in the resulting 
“minority nominees” a fatal defect in 
the primary system. However, it is 
not usual for the nomination to go to a 
minority candidate. In the infrequent 
instances where it does the result is 
accepted without much criticism, not 
because it is just, but because it is more 
satisfactory than holding a second pri¬ 
mary, or adopting preferential voting. 
In the non-partisan primary, the two 
candidates receiving the greatest num¬ 
ber of votes for each office are certified 
as nominated to run in the subsequent 
general election, except that if one 

9 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 
1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 
1010, Sec. 7, p. 1200. 


118 


The Annals of the American Academy 


candidate receives a majority of the 
votes cast he is the only man certified 
to appear on the election ballot for the 
office for which he is contending. 10 It 
is a rare case when more than two can¬ 
didates appear in the primaries for a 
judicial, school, county or township 
office, and it is quite the usual event 
that there is only one contestant for 
such an office. 

The procedure for proposing candi¬ 
dates to be voted on in the primary 
though generally acceptable, is also 
open to some criticism. The candi¬ 
date, or somebody in his behalf, at 
least forty days before the primary 
election, files a nomination paper which 
is endorsed by a number of registered 
voters. The number of signatures 
required in the nomination paper of 
any candidate for a state office in any 
party primary is not less than one- 
half of one per cent and not more 
than two per cent of the votes polled 
in the last preceding election by 
that party’s candidate for governor. 11 
It has been proposed by some that 
candidates in the primary should ob¬ 
tain endorsements of their candidacy 
from voters in all counties of the state. 
This proposal has been opposed on the 
ground that it would increase an evil 
already too pronounced, i.e., the trade 
in circulating nomination papers. Some 
enterprising citizens will undertake to 
secure any number of signatures at a 
fixed rate of payment per signature. 
The new proposal would obviously in¬ 
tensify this evil. Yet, in view of the 
marked evidences of local pride and the 
pronounced rivalry between different 
sections of the state, the suggestion is 
not without merit. 

In order to be entitled to have the 
names of its candidates printed on a 

10 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 
1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 
1010, Sec. 23, p. 1213. 

11 Ibid., Sec. 5, pp. 1198-1199. 


primary ballot, a party must have 
polled three per cent of the vote in the 
state in the last general election. If a 
new party appears it is entitled to this 
privilege by petition to the Secretary of 
State of a number of registered voters 
equal to three per cent of the total vote 
cast in the last general election. 12 
This provision is obviously somewhat 
disadvantageous to new parties. Se¬ 
curing some 30,000 signatures is indeed 
a difficult task. However, it is not im¬ 
possible; and it must be admitted that 
if a party has not that much strength in 
the state, it is hardly worth while for it 
to hold a primary. 

Difficulty Arising from Qualifica¬ 
tions for Candidacy 

Considerable difficulty has been oc¬ 
casioned in the past by the provision in 
the California primary law relating to 
qualifications for candidacy. The law 
enacted in 1909 required that the can¬ 
didate for a party nomination should 
make affidavit that he was affiliated 
with that party at the last preceding 
general election and at that time had 
voted for a majority of its candidates, 
or had not voted at all, and that he 
intended to vote for the candidates of 
that party at the ensuing election. 13 
This provision, of course, made it im¬ 
possible for any except “regular” 
members of parties to become candi¬ 
dates in the party primaries. 14 In 1911 

12 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 
1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 
1010, Sec. 1, p. 1190. 

13 California Statutes, 1909, Ch. 304, p. 694. 

14 One instance of the practical working of this 
clause in the law probably had a profound effect 
on the course of California politics. In 1909 
Francis J. Heney, on account of a variety of 
circumstances, was under the law ineligible to 
become a candidate in any party primary. Bv 
“writing in” his name a majority of Democrats 
nominated him for District Attorney of San 
Francisco County. If his name could have been 
printed on the official ballot it is almost certain 
that he would have been nominated on the Union 


The California Direct Primary 


119 


the law was amended so that the past 
affiliation of the candidate did not dis¬ 
bar him from running in the primary of 
a party if he declared that he intended 
to affiliate with that party and vote 
for a majority of its candidates at the 
ensuing election. 15 

In 1913 the law was again changed. 
By this change a candidate was not 
required to say anything at all about 
his party affiliation and this clause was 
added: “Nothing in this act contained 
shall be construed to limit the rights of 
any person to become the candidate of 
more than one political party for the 
same office. . . 16 Even after this 

change an attempt was made to limit 
candidacies in any party’s primaries to 
members of that party. In the pri¬ 
mary election held August 25, 1914, 
U. S. Webb, registered as a member of 
the Progressive Party, received a plu¬ 
rality of the vote cast in both the 
Republican and Progressive primaries 
for the office of Attorney General. In 
spite of the fact that the statute is 
clear and that there is no doubt of the 
legislature’s power to pass such a stat¬ 
ute, it was claimed that “a member 
of one party, seeking its nomination for 
an office, cannot at the same time . . . 
be a candidate for the nomination of 
another party for the same office.” 
Application for a court order to pro¬ 
hibit the Secretary of State from certi¬ 
fying the nomination of Webb as the 
Republican candidate for Attorney 
General was denied. The court de¬ 
clared that if the members of a party 

Labor ticket. With these two nominations, the 
advantage of “straight” voting would have been 
with Heney instead of against him, and in all 
probability he would have been elected. The 
famous San Francisco graft prosecutions would 
then have been carried through probably to an 
entirely different conclusion, with entirely differ¬ 
ent political consequences, of course. See F. 
Hichborn: The System, Ch. xxvii (1915). 

15 California Statutes, 1911, Ch. 398, p. 774. 

16 California Statutes, 1913, Ch. 690, p. 1389. 


“seek to select as their candidate one 
affiliated with another party, or with 
no party, that is their privilege.” 17 
In 1917 the primary law was 
amended so that a primary candidate 
who failed to secure the nomination of 
the party with which he was affiliated 
as shown by his registration, could not 
be nominated by another party. 18 In 
the first primary election after this 
amendment went into effect, that of 
1918, there were on the Democratic 
ballot the names of three candidates 
for governor; James Rolph, Jr., regis¬ 
tered as a Republican, and Francis J. 
Heney and Thomas Lee Woolwine, 
registered as Democrats. Rolph re¬ 
ceived 74,955 votes, Heney 60,662 
votes and Woolwine 28,879 votes. 
Thus Rolph, though not the choice of a 
majority of the Democrats for the 
candidacy for governor, led the other 
two by a respectable plurality, which is 
all the law requires to nominate. How¬ 
ever, he was also a candidate for the 
Republican nomination for which he 
was defeated. Having failed to receive 
the Republican nomination, he thus 
became ineligible under the amend¬ 
ment of 1917 for the Democratic 
nomination. In court proceedings in¬ 
stituted by Heney, the statute was 
upheld and Rolph was denied the right 
to have his name on the ballot as the 
Democratic candidate; but the court 
could not find any ground for the con¬ 
tention that as Heney had received the 
second highest vote he should be certi¬ 
fied as the Democratic nominee, nor 
that the Democratic State Central 
Committee had authority to designate 
the party’s candidate. 19 Another pro¬ 
vision of the law prohibited either 
Heney or Woolwine from becoming 
independent candidates. 20 Thus in 

17 Hart v. Jordan, 168 Cal. 321 (1914). 

18 California Statutes, 1917, Ch. 711, p. 1357. 

19 Heney v. Jordan, 179 Cal. 24 (1918). 

20 California Statutes, 1913, Ch. 690, p. 1391. 



120 


The Annals of the American Academy 


1918 the Democratic Party had no 
candidate for governor under its own 
name though Theodore A. Bell, at that 
time a Democrat, ran under the des¬ 
ignation ‘ ‘ Independent. ’ ’ 

In 1919 the legislature endeavored to 
correct the difficulty produced by the 
1917 amendment, by providing that in 
case the nominee of a party was de¬ 
clared ineligible on account of being 
affiliated with some other party, the 
party’s state central committee might 
designate a candidate. 21 An attempt 
made in the legislature of 1921 to pro¬ 
hibit a citizen from becoming a candi¬ 
date for nomination by any party 
except the one with which he is affil¬ 
iated was defeated. 22 

The Law in Operation 

Thus, as the law now stands, a person 
who is registered as affiliated with one 
party, may run in the primaries of an¬ 
other party, but can win its nomination 
only if he succeeds in getting the nomi¬ 
nation of his own party for the same 
office. In case such a candidate re¬ 
ceives the highest number of votes in 
the primary of a party not his own, but 
is defeated for nomination in the pri¬ 
mary of his own party, the resulting 
vacancy is to be filled by the state 
central committee of the party af¬ 
fected. It is obvious that this situa¬ 
tion might be turned to account by a 
state central committee bent on domi¬ 
nating the party candidates. More¬ 
over, manipulation of that sort would 
be difficult to uncover. That there 
would be some danger to the manipu¬ 
lators may be admitted. But a repeti¬ 
tion of the experience of the Democratic 
primary of 1918 is not impossible, and 
some astute observers of California 
politics are of the opinion that it is by 
no means improbable that some state 

21 California Statutes, 1919, Ch. 34, p. 53. 

22 F. Hichborn: Story of the California Legisla¬ 
ture of 1921, pp. 225-228 (1922). 


central committee will some day de¬ 
liberately try to bring it about. Such 
is the situation produced in the state 
by trying to operate a partisan primary 
in a non-partisan way. 

The California primary is “open” to 
the extent that any voter can partic¬ 
ipate in the primary of any party. It 
is, however, “closed” to the extent 
that the voter qualifies for participation 
in a party primary by declaring his 
affiliation with that party at the time 
of his registration, which must be at the 
latest thirty days before the date of the 
primary election. 23 There is some 
demand to have the primary a com¬ 
pletely “open” one but it is not at 
present powerful enough to make itself 
felt. On the other hand, there is some 
dissatisfaction with the “openness” of 
the present scheme. A great many 
Democrats habitually register with the 
Republican Party because the real con¬ 
tests are in the Republican primary, 
and it is alleged that these Democrats 
often control the Republican nomina¬ 
tion. However, the Democrats who 
do this are relatively so few that it is 
unlikely that in many cases they would 
have much effect upon the Republican 
candidacies. At any rate there is at 
present no noticeable demand to have 
the law changed in this respect. And 
if such a demand does come, it is more 
likely to reflect the non-partisan at¬ 
titude of the voters and result in mak¬ 
ing the primary as “open” as it is in 
Wisconsin, than to introduce more 
rigid tests of membership in a party for 
the purpose of protecting the partisan 
primaries. 

Interest of Voter 

The objections so far considered have 
all been aimed at the technical features 

23 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 
1919, California Political Code (1922), Secs. 
1094; 1096a, pp. 348, 350. 


The California 

of the primary law. There remains 
to be examined the dissatisfaction with 
the results of the operation of the 
law. 

There is first the repeated assertion 
that the direct primary should be 
abandoned because so few citizens are 
interested or participate in it. It is 
true that fewer voters take part in the 
primaries than in the subsequent gen¬ 
eral elections. Data which would show 
just what proportion of the California 
electorate goes to the polls doubtless 
exists, but it is not in such places as to 
be readily accessible or in such form 
as to be easily analyzed. It appears 
that if the objection has merit at all, it 
is only with respect to county elections. 
Figures in a few counties indicate that 
about a third of the voters is all that 
may be expected to attend the county 
primaries. In the state primaries, 
however, the situation is different. 
Reports issued by the office of the 
Secretary of State show that 56 per 
cent of the registered voters partici¬ 
pated in the state primaries in 1918, 24 
and 56 per cent in 1922. 25 When it is. 
realized that the total vote in the gen¬ 
eral election is usually only about 75 
per cent of the registration, 26 it appears 
that this criticism of the direct primary 
is scarcely warranted by the facts. 
Even if the vote in the primary were 
considerably less, and admitting that in 
any event nominations are by a minor¬ 
ity of the voters, it cannot be denied 
that a vastly greater number attend 
the primaries than ever did under the 
convention system. 

- 24 Secretary of State: Statement of the Vote 
at Primary ...» 1918, p. 3. 

26 Secretary of State: Statement of the Vote at 
Primary ...» 1922, p. 3. 

26 See statement of the Vote at General Elec¬ 
tion ...» prepared by the Secretary of State 
for years 1914, 1916, 1918, 1920. In 1918 the 
total vote in the general election was 59§ per 
cent of the registration; compare this with the 56 
per cent cast in the primaries. 


Direct Primary 121 

Expense 

Those who object to the direct pri¬ 
mary on the ground that voters take no 
interest in it are usually also loud in 
their protests against the costs of con¬ 
ducting the primaries. The added ex¬ 
pense to the state of an added election 
must be admitted. Under the con¬ 
vention system the immediate and 
direct cost to the state of nominating 
candidates for office was nothing at all. 
That the direct primary costs real 
money is perfectly apparent to anyone; 
but an examination of the actual figures 
reveals some startling facts. The ex¬ 
pense of the state primary election held 
in August, 1922, was at the rate of $95 
for ^very voting precinct in Alameda 
County. In Los Angeles County, the 
largest county in the state, the cost per 
precinct was about $85. In Lake 
County, a small county, the cost per 
precinct was slightly more than $100. 27 
There were 6,695 voting precincts in 
the state. If the average cost per pre¬ 
cinct was $85, which is probably a low 
estimate, the total was about $570,000. 
A total vote of 800,000 makes the cost 
per vote about seventy cents. The ex¬ 
pense of conducting the primary is 
somewhat higher than that of conduct¬ 
ing a general election, on account of the 
additional help required in the verifica¬ 
tion of nominating petitions and the 
necessity of printing ballots for each 
different party as well as a non-partisan 
ballot. 

The real question here is whether the 
direct primary is worth the cost, but it 
will hardly be fair to compare it with 
the convention system on this basis. 
The direct primary was adopted for the 
express purpose of eliminating the evils 
of conventions; if we would cure our- 

27 The figures here given are based on state¬ 
ments of expense secured by Mr. Bevier Robin¬ 
son, of Stanford University, from county officials 
in the various counties named. 


m 


The Annals of the American Academy 


selves of serious political ills, we must 
expect to pay the bill. Moreover, 
while it is true that the expenses of the 
conventions did not come immediately 
out of the state treasury, nobody knew 
how much the system eventually cost 
the state indirectly. It may well be 
questioned, however, whether the av¬ 
erage voter would be particularly 
enthusiastic about the direct primary 
if he were obliged to pay out seventy 
cents in cold cash before he could get 
his ballot at the polls on primary day. 

Effect on Machine Politics 

Some light on the value of the direct 
primary might be had if we could dis¬ 
cover to what extent the evils of boss 
rule and machine politics have been 
removed by the substitution of direct 
nominations for the convention system. 
But again there is no thoroughly re¬ 
liable information on which to base a 
judgment. One powerful political ma¬ 
chine certainly has been destroyed; and 
the direct primary was a major con¬ 
tributing cause in its downfall. It is 
by no means certain, however, that a 
new machine has not been created in 
its place. But if it does exist, it is 
clear that it was not so completely in 
control of the political situation as to 
determine the candidates for many of 
the offices in the 1922 primaries. It is 
exceedingly difficult also to find out 
whether party committees control the 
party candidacies. In local elections 
it is often the case that there appear 
advertisements of the “endorsement” 
of candidates by county or city Repub¬ 
lican or Democratic committees. In 
elections for Congress and the state 
legislature, however, the ease with 
which candidates succeed in winning 
in several different party primaries 
would seem to indicate either that 
party committees of opposing parties 
were working together or that they 
were not active at all. 


The latter is the safer conjecture, 
especially in view of the fact that it has 
been the party politicians who have 
made the many attempts to limit can¬ 
didacies in any party’s primaries to 
members of that party. Neverthe¬ 
less, there is at least one case where a 
party committee has openly tried to 
influence the primaries and with some 
success. The Democratic State Cen¬ 
tral Committee at a meeting held on 
July 11, 1922, “suggested” a list of 
candidates for all state offices (except 
governor) for United States senator 
and for members of Congress and the 
state legislature. 28 These “sugges¬ 
tions” were not generally accepted, 
and in the cases of two incumbent 
members of Congress the recommenda¬ 
tions were superfluous,—they would 
have been nominated anyway. But 
in a number of districts there were no 
candidates in the Democratic primaries 
except those named by the committee. 
Doubtless there are other cases of the 
same sort of thing, some perhaps not so 
open. But those who allege the ex¬ 
istence of widespread machine domina¬ 
tion of the primaries have yet to prove 
their case. 

Quality of Candidates 

The value of the direct primary 
might perhaps be thought to be evi¬ 
denced to some extent by the quality 
of the candidates it produces. Here 
again there is no reliable information on 
which to base conclusions. To prove 
that the character of public officials in 
California, judged by their honesty, 
ability, and attention to public busi¬ 
ness, has been lowered by use of the 
direct primary would tax the ingenuity 
of the most adroit critic of the direct 
primary. The persons wdio hold posi¬ 
tions in state, county and city govern¬ 
ments may not please The San Francisco 
( Tironicle or The Los Angeles Times. It 

28 The San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 1922, 


The California Direct Primary 


128 


by no means follows that they displease 
very many others or that they are, in 
fact, dishonest or incompetent. And 
a careful reading of the history of 
California politics in the days of the 
unregulated conventions would leave 
the unbiased observer somewhat at 
loss to discover in what desirable quali¬ 
ties public officers in those times ex¬ 
celled their successors of today. On 
the other hand, no one in his senses 
would claim that the officials of its 
various governing agencies are the 
most able and the most effective the 
state could possibly get. However, it 
may be pointed out that the chief pur¬ 
pose of the direct primary was not to 
increase the efficiency of government; 
it w r as to insure that whatever the 
government was,—whether good or 
bad,—the voters should have their will 
about it and not have to accept a 
government at the hands of a party 
organization. Judged wholly from 
that point of view the California pri¬ 
mary system has been a success. Even 
where the voters may have accepted,— 
under the primary law,—machine- 
picked candidates, it was generally 
with the full knowledge of the facts and 
with the free opportunity to reject the 
candidates. 

Expense to Candidates 

A very serious objection to the direct 
primary is that it costs the persons who 
run for office so much that many 
worthy persons are absolutely pro¬ 
hibited from becoming candidates. 
That it costs more under the direct pri¬ 
mary than it did under the convention 
system for a person to become a candi¬ 
date for office is another thing which 
cannot be proved. There are no rec¬ 
ords of the amounts spent by candi¬ 
dates before the party conventions in 
the days when there were no direct pri¬ 
maries. . Such records as we have of 
the expenditures of candidates in the 


primaries indicates that the cost of 
running for office is not exorbitant as a 
usual thing. When it is remembered 
that in a state-wide contest in the 
Republican Party, the candidates in 
1922 had to reach 927,046 voters, the 
$650 which the defeated candidate for 
governor declares he spent is little 
enough. Even the $6,086.15 spent by 
the successful candidate is at the rate 
of less than two-thirds of one cent 
per registered Republican voter, and 
slightly over two cents for each vote he 
received. Both of these candidates 
were very well known and doubtless it 
cost them less than an unknown person 
would have had to pay. The most 
costly campaign of all, as indicated by 
the statements filed with the Secretary 
of State, was that waged by the de¬ 
feated contestant for the Democratic 
nomination for governor. He spent 
$11,402.54 to reach 305,658 registered 
Democrats. Even this is only about 
three and two-thirds cents per voter. 
As he was little known compared with 
his opponent, who spent $1585.10, his 
costs probably represent about the 
high mark in primary campaigns. In 
comparison with the salary of the of¬ 
fice of governor, $10,000 a year for the 
four-year term, the smaller amounts 
spent by candidates are not too great. 
It may be doubted, however, whether 
more than $10,000 is not prohibitive in 
most cases. 29 

In Santa Clara County, in which the 
total number of registered voters for the 

29 The figures for expenses in this and the fol¬ 
lowing paragraph are the candidates’ own state¬ 
ments required of them by the primary law. 
They are taken from a news dispatch from 
Sacramento published in The Daily Palo Alto 
Times , for September 15, 1922, and from data 
secured by Mr. Ralph N. Shott, of Stanford 
University, from the office of the county clerk 
of Santa Clara County. There is, of course, 
the very great probability that sums were spent 
in behalf of some candidates in addition to those 
here given; but as to that there is no positive 
evidence. 


124 


The Annals of the American Academy 


1922 primary was 40,174, the amounts 
spent by the candidates for the offices 
which were actually contested ranged 
from $272 to $1,943. This is at the 
rate of from two-thirds of one cent to 
five cents per vote. The salaries of the 
offices involved were not above $3,000 
a year for a four-year term. It will be 
remembered that these offices are non¬ 
partisan. For some of these there was 
no contest, and in several cases the 
entire expense of the candidates in¬ 
cluded only the necessary notarial and 
filing fees. 

Expenses Not Prohibitive 

Whether these costs are too high 
depends chiefly on whether it would 
have cost the same candidates less to 
be nominated in some other way. If 
it could be proved that better candi¬ 
dates would have been nominated at a 
less cost to themselves under the con¬ 
vention system, the case for the con¬ 
vention would be almost complete. 
But it cannot be proved. It may be 
pointed out also that if some persons 
are now barred from nomination by 
the direct primary on account of the 
prohibitive costs (and no one will deny 
this), many others had no chance at all 
under the convention system no matter 
how able they or their friends were to 
finance their campaigns. Moreover, 
it may well be doubted that any con¬ 
siderable number of voters who have 
any real reason for insisting on the 
candidacy of any particular person, 
would experience great difficulty in 
raising a campaign fund sufficient to 
put the merits of their candidate before 
the voters. 

A by-product of the California 
corrupt practices law is an indirect 
limitation on the costs of conducting 
campaigns. The purposes for which 
money may be spent are specified in 
the law, and candidates are required to 
file statements of the total amounts 


spent. But the lawful purposes in¬ 
clude almost everything that is at all 
useful and there is no limit on the total 
amount which the candidates may law¬ 
fully spend. 30 The principle of the 
corrupt practices law might be devel¬ 
oped in two directions. A limit might 
be set on the total amount which could 
be spent in candidacy for each office; or 
the state might publish a publicity 
pamphlet, at the expense of the candi¬ 
dates but with a maximum of space 
available to each, to be mailed to each 
voter and to be the only means by 
which campaigns could be carried on. 
Both of these proposals are somewhat 
unfair, in that the best known candi¬ 
dates have a tremendous advantage 
which only extensive and intensive 
campaigning can overcome. The ex¬ 
clusive use of the official publicity 
pamphlet is undesirable from another 
point of view; the voter can scarcely 
judge with satisfaction between can¬ 
didates whom he cannot see and hear, 
nor can the candidates effectively 
reveal each other’s weaknesses unless 
they can make a good many statements 
at different times during the campaign. 
In an election for genuinely important 
offices a campaign conducted only in 
the pages of a pamphlet issued but once 
would be almost useless to a relatively 
little known candidate or to a public 
interested in comparing the personal¬ 
ities of the candidates. 

Nomination of Candidates for 
Local Office 

Experience with elections in counties 
and cities indicates that neither the 
direct primary nor the convention is 
necessary for nominating candidates 
for local office. The method already 
used in some cities 31 might be adopted 

30 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 
1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 
1010, Secs. 29 and 30, pp. 1222-1223. 

31 E.q. San Francisco. See California Stat¬ 
utes, 1917, p. 1714. 


The California Direct Primary 


125 


generally. A “declaration of candi¬ 
dacy” is filed by the candidate accom¬ 
panied by “endorsements” of a small 
number of electors. The exact number 
is not important but perhaps it ought 
not to be less than ten. Each endorse¬ 
ment is made separately to emphasize 
the responsibility of the voter signing 
it, and the endorsers or “sponsors” 
become in fact a sort of campaign com¬ 
mittee for their candidate. Party 
organizations might easily propose 
“tickets” but as local offices are al¬ 
ready non-partisan, no party designa¬ 
tions appear on the ballot, and in 
campaigning no one has any more 
right to the use of a party label than 
another. Party organizations would 
have some advantage but no more than 
under the present direct primary. To 
avoid the disasters that sometimes fol¬ 
low three-cornered fights, a scheme of 
preferential voting, such as is used in 
San Francisco, might be adopted, 
though there is now some doubt about 
the constitutionality of that device in 
California. In a recent case the Court 
of Appeals for the third district declared 
the system of proportional representa¬ 
tion established by the present Sacra¬ 
mento charter invalid partly on ac¬ 
count of the preferential or “transfer¬ 
able ” vote. 32 However, the number of 
actual contests for county and city 
offices is so small, and the cases where 
there are more than two candidates so 
rare, that the system here suggested is 
probably safe without the preferential 
vote. 

Of course the fundamental fact is 
that these local offices involve no parti¬ 
san issues of any sort; they are wholly 
administrative. The fundamental re¬ 
form, therefore, is to remove them from 
the elective class. That there is some 
opinion in this direction already is 

32 People v. Elkus, 39 Cal. Ap., 277 (1922). 
This case is now before the Supreme Court of the 
State on appeal. 


evidenced by the following editorial: 33 
“. . . Most of the county offices, in 
fact, are of such nature that issues can¬ 
not creep in. The work is routine and 
laid out in advance, and can be done 
but one way. In such offices we be¬ 
lieve the man who is giving satisfaction 
should be as secure in his position as a 
man employed by a private business 
concern would be under similar cir¬ 
cumstances. The time undoubtedly 
will come when certain county offices 
will become appointive, rather than 
elective, the appointees being entitled 
to continue in service as long as they 
are faithful and competent. The first 
step toward that ultimate reform was 
taken a few years ago when those con¬ 
tests were placed on a non-partisan 
basis. The next step will be to place the 
offices on a non-contest plane.” The 
arguments made here apply equally 
well to the choice of judges. If this 
reform were adopted to apply to all 
existing non-partisan offices, the costs 
of the primary election would no longer 
be so important a grievance against it 
from the point of view either of the tax¬ 
payer or of the candidate. 

Nominations Dominated by 
Newspapers 

A final criticism of the direct primary 
is that nominations have come under 
the domination of the newspapers, 
particularly the big city newspapers. 
Yet the “power of the press” is prob¬ 
ably no more pronounced now than in 
the old days, when party conventions 
also felt the journalistic influence. It 
appears to be accepted as a fact that 
the successful candidate for governor 
in the Republican primaries of 1922 
owed his nomination very largely to 
the support of the country press which 
was united in his behalf. That this is 
subversive of the public good remains 

33 The Daily Palo Alto Times , September 14, 
1922. 


126 


The Annals of the American Academy 


to be proven; certainly if a greatly 
preponderant majority of the news¬ 
papers of a state are behind a candi¬ 
dacy, there must be some merit in it. 
It is possible of course, though hardly 
probable, that so many papers could be 
dominated by “sinister interests” in 
behalf of an unfit candidate. 

It is true that the ownership of news¬ 
papers is uncontrolled by the public, 
and that owners can and often do in¬ 
fluence the news as well as the editorial 
columns. It is also true that the 
ownership of a newspaper and the 
political and economic affiliations of 
that ownership are usually matters of 
common knowledge in the locality 
where it is published and where it cir¬ 
culates. Sometimes a paper’s “poli¬ 
tics” is known even to people among 
whom it does not circulate. The par¬ 
ticular bias of such a paper as The San 
Francisco Examiner , for example, or 
The Los Angeles Her aid , or The Sacra¬ 
mento Bee , or The Fresno Republican, is 
known throughout the state and due 
allowance is made for it. Moreover, a 
newspaper’s editorial policy is probably 
influenced by its readers as well as by 
its owners. To be a success it must 
have readers; to have readers it must 
please them. It will not in the long 
run follow a consistently unpopular 
policy or endorse unpopular candidates. 
It is a notable fact that the leading 
papers of the state are quick to “back 
winning horses.” For these reasons if 
the voters of the state were to choose 
between candidates produced by con¬ 
ventions dominated by bosses and ma¬ 
chines, with or without newspaper 
influence, and candidates produced by 
a direct primary dominated by the 
newspapers, there is no doubt that they 
would take their chances with the 
latter. 

Conclusion 

It appears from this analysis of the 
operation of the direct primary in 


California that there are two classes of 
criticism of the present law,—those 
which are addressed to certain features 
of the California primary and those 
which constitute attacks on the pri¬ 
mary system itself as a method of 
nomination. Of the former only one 
difficulty of great significance is ob¬ 
servable, i.e., the provision respecting 
candidacy by one person for an office 
in the primaries of more than one party 
at the same time. If a member of one 
party is to be permitted to run in the 
primaries of another party, he certainly 
ought to be permitted to become that 
party’s candidate if he can get enough 
votes. 

Of the objections to the primary 
itself the following may be noted: (1) 
Lack of interest on the part of voters is 
confined chiefly to local primaries 
where it is often the case that there are 
no contests. The indicated reform is 
either the adoption of a simpler system 
of nomination than either convention 
or direct primary, or to make the local 
administrative offices appointive by an 
elected legislative body, i.e., the adop¬ 
tion of the “short ballot.” (2) The 
cost of conducting the direct primary is 
great, but not too great if its purposes 
have been accomplished. That these 
purposes have been in large part if not 
wholly achieved will be generally ad¬ 
mitted. Again the adoption of the 
“short ballot” would materially di¬ 
minish the cost. (3) The cost to the 
candidates for campaigning is in many 
cases prohibitive, but probably not 
more so than under the convention 
system. The most practicable remedy 
here is also the “short ballot” and a 
simpler nominating system for such 
non-partisan local offices as must be 
elected. (4) The influence of the press 
may on occasion be pernicious, but at 
its worst it is not an unmixed evil. It 
contains its own corrective in the 
inherent necessities of the competitive 


The California Direct Primary 


127 


nature of the newspaper business. And 
it should be said that, despite some 
conspicuous exceptions, the reputation 
for fairness of the newspapers of the 
state as a whole is decidedly in their 
favor. (5) Finally, none of the defects 


of the direct primary would be cured 
by a return to the convention system. 
Moreover, whatever the defects of 
the direct primary, the citizens of 
California show no desire to aban¬ 
don it. 


The Direct Primary Law in Maine and How 

It Has Worked 

By Orren Chalmer Hormell, Ph.D. 

Bowdoin College 


T HE adoption of the direct primary 
law in Maine in 1911 was due 
largely to the progressive movement 
which placed on the statute books, in 
addition to the direct primary law, the 
initiative and referendum, and a cor¬ 
rupt practices act. An opinion which 
prevailed generally with the masses in 
both parties was that “the official class 
has long relieved the voters ... of 
the obligation of self-government.’’ 1 
It was contended that the official class 
“had packed legislative committees,” 
had “resisted state printing reforms,” 
had been guilty of “charging up dead¬ 
head tickets against the taxpayers,” 
and had exempted from taxation rail¬ 
ways, “wild land, and other public 
utilities.” 2 

A plank demanding “honest cau¬ 
cuses,” and “full publicity of all ex¬ 
penditures” for nominations as well as 
elections, appeared in the Democratic 
platform of 1908. Both of the major 
parties advocated a direct primary law 
in their platforms of 1910. 3 The 
legislature which convened in January, 

1 Lewiston Evening Journal, July 1, 1908. 

2 Ibid., June 30, 1908. 

3 Maine Republican Party platform, 1910: 
“We urge upon our legislature the enactment of 
such direct primary and other laws as may prop¬ 
erly regulate the conduct of all caucuses to secure 
the honest and free expression of the proper 
voters therein.” Lewiston Evening Journal, 
June 29, 1910. 

Maine Democratic Party platform, 1910: 
“ The Democratic Party of Maine in convention 
assembled declares that it will . . . demand a 
direct primary law.” Lewiston Evening Journal, 
June 15, 1910. 

4 House: Democrats, 87; Republicans 64. 
Senate: Democrats, 22; Republicans, 9. 


1911, was Democratic in both of its 
branches. 4 The Republican members 
of the legislature were not willing, how¬ 
ever, to leave to their Democratic 
colleagues the task and honor of pro¬ 
viding the state with a direct primary 
law. Under the leadership of Howard 
Davies of Yarmouth a direct primary 
law was drawn up, filed with the Secre¬ 
tary of State, February 3, and trans¬ 
mitted to the legislature, February 6, 
1911. 5 It became the Republican 
measure and was commonly called the 
Davies Bill. The Democratic or Ad¬ 
ministration Direct Primary Bill was 
introduced into the House, March 10, 
just three weeks before the legislature 
adjourned. 6 It was drawn up by 
Nathan Clifford and William M. Pen¬ 
nell of Portland and was commonly 
known as the Pennell Bill. 7 Both 
Bills were referred to the Judiciary 
Committee. The Democratic major¬ 
ity in the committee reported in favor 
of the Pennell Bill, while the Repub¬ 
lican minority members favored the 
Davies Bill. 8 The majority report in 
favor of the Pennell Bill was adopted 
by the House by a vote of seventy-five 
to twenty, 9 and by the Senate by a 
vote of nineteen to five. 10 The vote 
closely followed party lines. The de¬ 
bates in the legislature on the measures 
were surprisingly short. With one or 
two exceptions the arguments clashed 

6 State of Maine, Journal of the Senate, 1911, p. 
202 . 

6 Ibid., Legislative Record, 1911, p. 458. 

7 Ibid., p. 1061. 

8 Ibid., p. 739. 

9 Ibid., p. 1066. 

10 Ibid., p. 1046. 


128 


The Direct Primary" Law in Maine 


129 


only on the difference between the 
bills and not on the general principles 
of the direct primary. 

The only attack in either House on 
the general principles of the direct pri¬ 
mary was made by the Democratic 
senator from Knox County, Mr. L. M. 
Staples. He contended, first, that a 
direct primary would make it “almost 
impossible for any man of moderate 
means to become a candidate for office,” 
on account of the great expense in¬ 
volved in getting the voters out to the 
polls for the primary election; 11 and, 
second, that there was “no call for it by 
the voters of Maine.” Senator Carl 
E. Milliken (Republican), of Aroos¬ 
took, answered that he considered that 
the argument about the expense had 
no force whatever and that he favored 
the direct primary because it would 
“give the people a right to express 
directly their choice.” 12 

The relative merits of the opposing 
measures were argued more at length. 
Both Bills applied the direct primary to 
the nomination of governor, represen¬ 
tatives to Congress, and United States 
senators. The Davies Bill, however, 
went further and applied it to the state 
auditor, members of the state legisla¬ 
ture, and county officers. The Davies 
Bill, furthermore, contained detailed 
provisions not found in the Pennell 
Bill for holding state conventions prior 
to the primaries, for limiting the ex¬ 
penditures of candidates, and for pub¬ 
licity of campaign expenditures; while 
the Pennell Bill alone provided that 
candidates for governor should pay to 
the Secretary of State a fee of one 
hundred dollars and for representative 
to Congress, or United States senator 
fifty dollars. 

The Democrats, led by Mr. William¬ 
son of Kennebec County, contended 

11 State of Maine, Legislative Record, 1911, 
p. 1045. 

n Ibid., p. 1046. 

10 


that county officers should not be in¬ 
cluded, since candidates for county 
positions are not usually well known 
throughout the county; hence the vot¬ 
ers will naturally vote for the candi¬ 
date from their own section. The 
result, he believed, would be that 
candidates from the cities or large 
towns would always win and that the 
smaller towns would be “almost wholly 
deprived of representation.” He be¬ 
lieved also that where several towns 
made up a representative district, the 
representative to the state legislature 
would always come from the largest 
town. 13 

Since the legislature refused to enact 
the initiated Davies Direct Primary 
Bill, it automatically went before the 
voters of the state. The question came 
up for decision at the special election 
held on September 11, 1911. Very 
little public interest seemed to have 
been aroused, if we may judge from 
the newspaper accounts. Public at¬ 
tention during the weeks preceding the 
election was absorbed almost entirely 
by the prohibition constitutional 
amendment which was resubmitted to 
the voters. 

At the polls, however, the people 
expressed their approval of the Davies 
Bill by a vote of 65,810 to 21,744. 
The popular majority in favor of the 
measure was almost as pronounced as 
was the majority in the legislature in 
favor of the Pennell Bill. Not only 
the country towns but the cities, in¬ 
cluding those under Democratic con¬ 
trol, voted in favor of the measure. 
It is difficult to account for the large 
“yes” vote in such Democratic cities 
as Lewiston, where the vote was 2,613 
for to 340 against. 14 Possibly the 
great mass of city voters were in¬ 
structed to vote “yes” on all the ques- 

13 Ibid., p. 1062. 

14 Lewiston Evening Journal, September 12, 

1911. 


130 


The Annals of the American Academy 


tions on the ballot in order that they 
would vote “yes” for the repeal of the 
prohibition clause. 

The adoption of the Davies measure 
by the people, automatically made null 
and void the Administration Bill passed 
by the legislature. The proponents of 
the measure expected it to produce the 
following results: 

1. Render impossible the rule of the 
party boss. 

2. Reduce corruption to a minimum. 

3. Afford opportunity for the examina¬ 
tion of a candidate’s record. 

4. Inform the voters with regard to the 
candidate’s position on pending questions of 
public policy. 

5. Afford better facilities for the punish¬ 
ment of official wrongdoing. 

6. Secure rule of the people. 

Essential Features of the Maine 
Direct Primary Law 

An understanding of the essential 
features of Maine’s direct primary law 
and the conditions under which it has 
operated, is necessary for an under¬ 
standing of how it has worked. 

The essential features are as fol¬ 
lows : 15 . 

1. Application of the Law. The law 
applies to state governor, auditor, 
United States senators, representatives 
to Congress, and county officers, but 
does not apply to city, town and plan¬ 
tation officers. 

2. “ Closed ” Type of Primary. The 
primary is of the “closed” type, in 
that it requires enrolment in the party 
as a prerequisite for voting in all towns 
of two thousand or more inhabitants. 
Voters in towns of less than two thou¬ 
sand are required only to declare their 
party affiliation. Enrolment cannot 
be changed from one party to another 
within six months of the primary elec- 

16 State of Maine, Revised Statutes , 1916, 
Chap. 6. • 


tion. This provision, however, does 
not apply to cities of more than 35,000 
inhabitants, which, in effect, exempts 
only the city of Portland from the en¬ 
rolment clause. 

3. Nominations. A candidate se¬ 
cures a place on the primary ballot by 
filing nomination papers containing 
names of qualified voters to the number 
of “not less than one per cent nor more 
than two per cent of the entire vote 
cast for governor in the last preceding 
election . . . within the electoral divi¬ 
sion or district wherein such proposed 
candidate is to be voted for.” 

4. Expenditures. Candidates nomi¬ 
nated in the primary election are re¬ 
quired to file with the Secretary of 
State a “return of expenditures.” 
The law limits the amount which the 
candidates for the several offices may 
spend, and indicates the purposes for 
which money may be expended. Per¬ 
sonal traveling expenses, postage and 
stationery are not included in the re¬ 
turn. 

5. State Convention. Provision is 
made for a state convention of each 
party to be held prior to the primary, 
at which convention a party platform 
is drawn up and adopted, and a state 
committee, congressional district com¬ 
mittees and county committees are 
chosen. 

It should be noted here that the 
direct primary began under more favor¬ 
able conditions in Maine than in many 
other states. For it was not handi¬ 
capped by the long ballot, which has 
been one of the chief difficulties facing 
it in many states. Among the state 
officials, only the governor and auditor 
are elected by popular vote, and all 
the positions to be filled by primary 
nominations, with the exception of a 
few of the county positions, are im¬ 
portant enough to interest the average 
voter. 


The Direct Primary Law in Maine 


131 


How Has the Direct Primary 
Worked in Maine? 

The subject will be treated under the 
following headings: 

1. Has the primary given undue ad¬ 
vantage to city candidates and deprived 
the country of its just representation in 
state and county offices? 

2. What has been the effect of the pri¬ 
mary upon the number of candidates? 

3. Has it substituted plurality for major¬ 
ity in nominations? 

4. What effect has it had upon party 
organization and party harmony? 

5. What has been its effect upon the 
quality of officers chosen? 

6. Has the direct primary made it more 
expensive to run for office? 

7. What has been the effect of the direct 
primary upon popular interest in nomina¬ 
tions? 

(1) Has the Direct Primary Given 

an Undue Advantage to the City 

Candidate Over His Country 

Rival? 

The Portland Evening Express and 
Daily Advertiser maintains that it does. 
The “direct primary plan,” it says, 
“ . . . invariably gives the city can¬ 
didate an advantage over the country 
candidate,” since “a voter will almost 
certainly support a man from his own 
town.” 16 The same view is expressed 
by the Bangor Daily Commercial. 17 
Such a result was predicted on the 
floor of the Senate when the bill was 
before the legislature. The statement 
that the city candidate has an undue 
advantage has been repeated so often 
and widely that it has been accepted 
almost as an axiom. 

In order to discover the facts, the 
writer has made a study of the dis- 

16 Portland Evening Express and Daily Adver¬ 
tiser, November 14; November 24, 1922. 

17 Bangor Daily Commercial, November 15; 
November 25, 1922. 


tribution of county officers and state 
senators between the cities and coun¬ 
try towns in the counties having im¬ 
portant urban centers for the six 
biennial periods since the adoption of 
the direct primary. The distribution 
for that period was then compared with 
a like distribution during the last six 
biennial periods under the convention 
system. The tabulated results of the 
study appear in the accompanying 
tables. 18 

Table I shows that under the direct 
primary in comparison with a like 
period under the convention, the city’s 
share in the offices was reduced by 
twenty-two, or 4.6 per cent, while the 
country’s share was increased by the 
same amount. Five of the eight coun¬ 
ties showed a loss for the cities and a 
gain for the country towns. A further 
analysis of the figures, which are given 
in Table II, results in the interesting 
discovery that under the direct pri¬ 
mary there has been a remarkable 
correlation of distribution of offices ac¬ 
cording to population as between city 
and country. The distribution of offi¬ 
ces in every county except Kennebec 
has tended to approach more closely to 
the basis of the population distribution. 
On the basis of population distribution, 
the cities of the counties of Cumber¬ 
land, Sagadahoc and York, in the 
period prior to the direct primary, had 
been under-represented in county offices, 
while the cities in the other five coun¬ 
ties had been over-represented. A 
study of Table III shows how nearly 
the under-representation in the one 
group and the over-representation in 
the other have been wiped out. Ban¬ 
gor furnishes a striking illustration. 

is Note: The biennial period was taken as a 
unit of comparison, and no account was taken of 
the fact that the term of some offices was four 
years, in order to indicate accurately the extent 
to which the city and the country each enjoyed 
the emoluments of office. 


132 


The Annals of the American Academy 


TABLE I— Distribution of County Offices Between City and Country 
(Convention Era Compared with Direct Primary Era) 



City 

Country 


1901-11 

1913-23 

1901-11 

1913-23 

County 










No. of 

Per Cent 

No. of 

Per Cent 

No. of 

Per Cent 

No. of 

Per Cent 


Offices 

of Total 

Offices 

of Total 

Offices 

of Total 

Offices 

of Total 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Androscoggin. 

46 

76.6 

44 

73.3 

14 

23.4 

16 

26.7 

Cumberland. 

29 

48.3 

34 

56.5 

31 

51.7 

26 

43.5 

Kennebec. 

27 

45.0 

22 

36.6 

33 

55.0 

38 

63.4 

Knox. 

25 

41.7 

15 

25.0 

35 

58.3 

45 

75.0 

Penobscot. 

82 

53.3 

22 

36.6 

28 

46.7 

38 

63.4 

Sagadahoc. 

32 

53.3 

36 

60.0 

28 

46.7 

24 

40.0 

Waldo. 

36 

60.0 

21 

35.0 

24 

40.0 

‘ 39 

65.0 

York. 

9 

15.0 

20 

33.3 

51 

85.0 

40 

66.7 

Total. 

236 

49.2 

214 

44.6 

244 

50.8 

266 

55.4 

Gain or Loss. 

.... 

.... 

-22 

-4.6 

.... 

.... 

+ 22 

+ 4.6 


TABLE II— Population 


County 

Total 

City 

City’s 
Per Cent 
of Total 

Country 

Country’s 
Per Cent 
of Total 

Androscoggin. 

65,796 

48,776 

74.2 

17,020 

25.8 

Cumberland. 

124,376 

69,272 

55.7 

55,104 

44.3 

Kennebec. 

63,466 

27,466 

43.8 

36,378 

56.2 

Knox. 

26,245 

8,109 

31.3 

18,136 

68.7 

Penobscot. 

87,684 

25,978 

29.6 

61,706 

70.4 

Sagadahoc. 

. 23,021 

14,731 

63.9 

8,290 

36.1 

Waldo. 

21,328 

5,083 

23.8 

16,245 

76.2 

York. 

70,696 

35,516 

50.2 

35,180 

49.8 

Total. 

482,991 

234,931 

48.6 

248,059 

51.4 


Under the convention era, 1901-11, 
she held thirty-two to the country’s 
twenty-eight county offices, while un¬ 
der the direct primary, 1913-23, she 
has held twenty-two to the country’s 
thirty-eight. 

It is interesting to note that in 
Kennebec County, which alone failed 
to follow the general tendency, the 
country towns rather than the city 


gained “an undue advantage” under 
the direct primary. 

City and Country Representation 
Compared 

The tendency under the direct pri¬ 
mary for representation between city 
and country to approach the standard 
of the population distribution is further 
clearly indicated by Tables IV and V. 


















































































TABLE III Distribution of County Officers Compared with Distribution of Population Between City and Country 


The Direct Primary Law in Maine 


133 





• oo • • o • ei 



1 

• * * i> • rH 

• • • • rH 


CO 

+ 

.9 

7.2 

6.3 

3.9 

16.9 


i 

go 

rH 

05 

rH 

Per Cent 

of Pop¬ 

ulation 

CO CO O) rH GO 

•d'fooooooa 

(H 

K 

H 

§ 


Per Cent 

of 

Offices 

26.7 

43.6 

63.4 

75.0 

63.4 

40.0 

65.0 

66.7 




P 

O 



• ©I Tft • <34 • 

U 


1 

©* • I —1 © CO • Co 

• i—i ©* • 00 


rH 

+ 

7.4 

10.6 

35.2 


V 

rH 

o 

O 

rH 

Per Cent 
of Pop¬ 
ulation 

25.8 

44.3 
56.2 

68.7 

70.4 

36.1 

76.2 

49.8 



Per Cent 
of 

Offices 

23.4 

51.7 
55.0 
58.3 

46.7 
46.7 
40.0 
85.0 




a • oi go • a • a 



1 

• i> CO -CO • o 

• • • rH 


1913-23 

+ 

.8 

7.0 

11.2 


Per Cent 
of Pop¬ 
ulation 

OJt-COCOCOCSOOOI 

■'flOCOi—ICSCOGOO 

H 


Per Cent 
of 

Offices 

OOlOCOOCDOOOO 

COCOCOtOCOO»OGO 

t>*oeo®<cocoooco 

►H 

o 



. ^ . . .50 • ca 



1 

• t> • • • O • «5 

• • • • i—( -GO 



+ 

• Oi i> • Oi • 


rH 

Qi • rH o GO • CO 

• H S) -GO • 


rH 

i 

rH 

O 

o> 

rH 

Per Cent 
of Pop¬ 
ulation 

74.2 

55.7 

43.8 

31.3 
29.6 

63.9 
23.8 
50.2 



Per Cent 
of 

Offices 

CDCOOl>GOCOOO 

CDCO«5HGOGOO«5 

County 

Androscoggin.. . 
Cumberland.. .. 

Kennebec. 

Knox. 

Penobscot. 

Sagadahoc. 

Waldo. 

York. 




































































TABLE IV —Distribution of Senators Between Cities and Country Towns 


134 


The Annals of the American Academy 


1913-23 

Difference Between 

Column No. 9 and 

Column No. 10 

11 

17.5 

.6 

3.7 

• 

• 

1.5 

14.6 

13.9 

7.1 

16.9 

GO 

+ 

• 

Per Cent 

of Total 

Population 

10 

25.8 

44.3 

56.2 

68.7 

70.4 

36.1 

76.2 

49.8 

51.4 

• 

Country 

1913-23 

Per Cent 
of Total 

9 

8.3 

45.8 

55.6 

83.3 

66.7 

50.0 

83.3 

66.7 

54.6 

-H.1% 

No. of 
Senators 

8 

J—1 rH O *0 O* CO *0 O* 

H H H rH 

59 

rH 

1 

1901-11 

Per Cent 
of Total 

7 

33.3 

58.4 
77.8 

100.0 

66.7 

50.0 

100.0 

66.7 

65.7 

• 

No. of 
Senators 

6 

r—t j— < rH rH 

rH 

• 

City 

1913-23 

Per Cent 
of Total 
Population 
5 

74.2 

55.7 

43.8 

31.3 
29.6 

63.9 
23.8 
50.2 

48.6 

• 

Per Cent 
of Total 

4 

91.7 

54.2 
44.4 

16.7 

33.3 
50.0 
16.7 
33.3 

45.4 

+ 11.1% 

No. of 
Senators 

3 

HCOCOhOCOhO 

rH rH 

49 

<3* 

rH 

+ 

1901-11 

Per Cent 
of Total 

2 

66.7 

41.6 

22.2 

0.0 

33.3 

50.0 

0.0 

33.3 

34.3 

• 

No. of 
Senators 

1 

coo^oocooco 

rH 

37 

• 

County 

Androscoggin. 

Cumberland. 

Kennebec . 

Knox. 

Penobscot . 

Sagadahoc . 

Waldo . 

York . 

Total. 

dain or Loss . 


w 

H 

O 


£ 


: Total number of Senators, 108. 















































































The Direct Primary Law in Maine 


135 


During the last six biennial periods 
under the convention system, the 
representatives of cities won 14.3 less 
than their just proportion according to 
population, while under the direct pri¬ 
mary they approached to within 3.2 of 
their just proportion on the basis of 

TABLE V— Distribution of State Senators 
Between City and Country Compared 
with Distribution of Population 


1901-1911 (Convention Era ) 



City 

Country 

Per cent of county popu- 



lation. 

48.6 

51.4 

Per cent of offices. 

34.3 

65.7 

Over- or under-repre- 



sented . 

-14.3 

+ 14.3 


1913-1923 (Direct Primary Era) 


Per cent of county popu¬ 
lation . 

48.6 

45.4 

51.4 

54.6 

Per cent of offices. 

Over- or under-repre¬ 
sented . 

-3.2 

+3.2 



population. It is often contended that 
Greater Portland, including Westbrook 
and South Portland with Portland, has 
been securing more than her share of 
the state senators. Statistics show 
that Greater Portland with 70.7 per 
cent of the population of the county 
held (1901-11) only 54.5 per cent of the 
senatorial representation, while under 
the direct primary, (1913-23) she has 
held 62.5 per cent of the senatorial 
representation, which is 8.2 less than 
her population calls for. Is it fair to 
say in the face of such facts, that the 
cities have an undue advantage in 
securing senatorial representation, es¬ 
pecially when it is recognized that on 
account of the constitutional limitation 
the cities are greatly under-represented 


in the House? Portland has one 
representative in the House for each 
ten thousand people, while many of 
the smaller towns have one for each 
three thousand. 

It has been said that the distribution 
of offices is not a fair test, and that the 
real test comes when a candidate from 
the city runs in opposition to a candi¬ 
date from the country. Applying 
that test to the Republican primary of 
1922 19 in the eight counties chosen 
above, it appears that there were 
eighteen contests between country and 
city candidates; twelve were won by 
the country candidates and only six by 
the city candidates. 

A survey of the statistics 20 on the 
primaries in the three counties having 
the large cities, 21 Androscoggin, Cum¬ 
berland, and Penobscot, for the six 
primary elections gives the results, as 
shown in Table VI, with regard to con¬ 
tests for county offices. The more sig¬ 
nificant statistics are those from the 
Republican primaries in Cumberland 
and Penobscot counties, where the can¬ 
didate nominated at the primaries is 
reasonably sure of election. 

Table VII shows the total number of 
candidates in the three counties con¬ 
testing for the several offices, the num¬ 
ber from the city and from the country 
winning and losing. It is interesting 
to note from the table on bottom 
of following page that 46.7 per cent of 
the candidates running from the city 
won, while 53.3 per cent lost; while 
among the country candidates 49.6 per 
cent won and 50.4 per cent lost. 

The opponents of the direct primary 
in 1911 predicted that in case a repre¬ 
sentative to the legislature represented 

19 Note: The contests in the Democratic pri¬ 
maries were few and the Democratic organization 
in the country districts in most counties was 
much weaker than that of the cities. 

20 Official returns filed in the office of the 
Secretary of State at Augusta. 

21 Auburn and Lewiston, Portland, and Bangor. 
























136 


The Annals of the American Academy 


TABLE VI —Republican Primaries 


County 

No. of Contests 

Won by City 

Won by Country 

Androscoggin. 

11 

5 

6 

Cumberland. 

12 

5 

7 

Penobscot. 

12 

3 

9 

Total. 

35 

13 

22 


Democratic Primaries 


Androscoggin. 

10 

G 

4 

Cumberland. 

22 

13 

9 

Penobscot a . 

6 

4 

2 

Total. 

38 

23 

15 

Total, Republican and Democratic 

73 

36 

37 


a Residences of candidates in Penobscot County were not procured for 1912-14; hence only 
four primaries are represented in the Penobscot figures. 


TABLE VII —City and Country Candidates 22 


County 

No. OF 
Offices 

Candi¬ 

dates 

City 

Country 

Won 

Lost 

Won 

Lost 

Republican 

Androscoggin. 

38 

82 

29 

31 

9 

13 

Cumberland. 

36 

82 

26 

35 

10 

11 

Penobscot. 

23 

63 

10 

25 

13 

15 

Total. 

97 

227 

65 

91 

32 

39 


Democratic 


Androscoggin. 

32 

72 

25 

31 

7 

9 

Cumberland.. 

36 

57 

22 

12 

14 

9 

Penobscot. 

23 

38 

11 

6 

12 

9 

Total. 

91 

167 

58 

49 

33 

27 

Total, Republican and Democratic 

188 

394 

123 

140 

65 

66 


22 The statistics for Penobscot for 1912-14 and for Androscoggin for 1914 are not included, since 
the residences for those years were not available. 





























































































The Direct Primary Law in Maine 


137 


several towns, one being much larger 
than the rest, the smaller town would 
never furnish a representative. For 
example, it was declared in the legisla¬ 
ture, 1911, 23 concerning the legislative 
class made up of Hallo well, Manches¬ 
ter, and West Gardiner, that: “Under 
the present system [Convention] . . . 
Manchester would have one term, West 
Gardiner one, and Hallowell three. 
But if the Davies Bill becomes a *law 
neither Manchester nor West Gardiner 
will be represented during the next ten 
years.” The extent to which the pre¬ 
diction failed is indicated by the fact 
that West Gardiner had its turn in 
1914, Manchester in 1916, and Hallo- 
well its three in the three succeeding 
biennial periods. 24 A survey of a large 
number of similar representative dis¬ 
tricts shows that in the main, the tradi¬ 
tion of distribution of representatives 
between towns has been continued un¬ 
affected by the change in the system 
of nomination. 

(2) What Has Been the Effect of 

the Direct Primary Upon the 

Number of Candidates? 

The answer to the question may be 
gained from an analysis of Table VIII. 
It appears from the table that the 
average number of candidates for the 
Republican positions was about one 
and one-half, for the Democratic posi¬ 
tions slightly more than one and one- 
tenth, while 71.1 per cent of all the 
positions were filled by unopposed 
candidates. 

Referring back to Table VII 25 it is 
seen that in the three counties ex¬ 
amined, three hundred and ninety-four 
candidates entered the primary contest 
for one hundred and eighty-eight 

23 State of Maine, Legislative Record, 1911, p. 
1063. 

24 Official Returns, Office of the Secretary of 
State, Augusta. 

26 Above, page 136. 


county positions, which makes an 
average of slightly more than two can¬ 
didates for each office. A comparison 
of the above results under the primary 
system with the number of candidates 
running under the convention system, 
based upon newspaper reports, shows 
that the change to the primary has had 
little or no effect in Maine upon the 
number of candidates running for 
office. 

(3) Has the Direct Primary Substi¬ 
tuted Plurality for Majority 

Nominations? 

One of the usual objections made 
against the direct primary is that it 
substitutes plurality for majority nom¬ 
inations. In theory that is undoubt¬ 
edly a weakness. But how has it 
worked in practice? An analysis of 
the primary election returns for 1922 
shows that out of the five hundred and 
ninety-two positions filled by the two 
parties in the primaries, five hundred 
and fifty-eight were nominated by a 
majority vote; that is, 94.3 per cent 
received a majority of the votes cast. 
An examination of the nominations of 
ninety-six senators from Androscoggin, 
Cumberland and Penobscot counties 
since 1912 26 shows that ninety-four 
were nominated by a majority and only 
two by a plurality vote. An examina¬ 
tion of the nominations of one hundred 
and eighty-eight county officers for the 
same counties over the same period, 
shows one hundred and forty-nine nom¬ 
inated by a majority vote and thirty- 
nine by plurality vote. It seems fair 
to conclude, therefore, that the evils of 
plurality nominations have been ex¬ 
perienced only to a slight degree under 
the primary. 

26 Note: The figures for 1912 and 1914 for 
Penobscot County were not available, hence only 
the four biennial periods 1916 through 1922 were 
used for that county. 


138 


The Annals of the American Academy 


TABLE VIII— Primary of 1922 


Republican 


Office 

Number 

Candidates 

Unopposed 

By 

Majority 

Vote 

By 

Plurality 

Vote 

U. S. Senator. 

1 

3 

0 

1 

0 

Governor. 

1 

3 

0 

1 

0 

State Auditor. 

1 

3 

0 

0 

1 

Representative to Congress. 

4 

4 

4 

4 

0 

County Offices. 

107 

194 

00 

88 

19 

State Representatives. 

151 

208 

85 

146 

5 

State Senators. 

31 

48 

4 

27 

4 

Total. 

290 

463 

153 

207 

29 


Democratic 


U. S. Senator. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

Governor. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

State Auditor. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

Representative to Congress. 

4 

4 

4 

4 

0 

County Offices. 

107 

131 

88 

102 

5 

State Representatives. 

151 

155 

144 

151 

0 

State Senators. 

31 

33 

27 

31 

0 

Total. 

296 

326 

266 

291 

5 

Total Republican and Dem- 






ocratic. 

592 

789 

419 

558 

34 


(4) What Has Been the Effect of 

the Direct Primary Upon Party 

Organization and Party Harmony? 

The answer to the above is largely a 
matter of opinion. If political news in 
the daily press and the evidence given 
by the candidates themselves may be 
relied on, it is only rarely that bitter 
personalities among candidates in a 
primary have been indulged in. The 
candidate defeated in the primary al¬ 
most invariably lends his hearty sup¬ 
port in the election campaign to his 
successful opponent. In fact, a study 
of the newspapers reveals fewer politi¬ 
cal feuds in the party in recent years 
than appeared in the period from 1900 
to 1912, when “ring” and “anti-ring” 
were often struggling to control the 
party nominating conventions. 


The pre-primary state conventions, 
provided for by the primary law, aid in 
bringing the party leaders and dele¬ 
gates together for conference and dis¬ 
cussion. There is a widespread feeling, 
however, that the lack of a county con¬ 
vention is a handicap to the party 
organization in the county. 

(5) What Has Been the Effect of 
the Primary Upon the Quality 
of Officers Chosen? 

This again is a question upon which 
informed opinion is much divided. 
The opponents of the system declare 
that the officers nominated under the 
direct primary are decidedly inferior in 
quality to those under the convention 
system. They are careful however 
to mention no names. The advocates 


























































The Direct Primary Law in Maine 


139 


of the primary system, on the other 
hand, ask if it is true that Curtis, Mil- 
liken and Baxter have not been equal 
in courage, judgment and adminis¬ 
trative ability to governors of the 
convention era. Opinion is also di¬ 
vided with regard to the quality of the 
legislature under the primary system. 
It seems that there are fewer dominat¬ 
ing leaders in the legislature than in 
former years. It is more difficult to 
pass measures through the legislature 
at the dictation of one man or a few 
men. No one maintains that in recent 
years the legislature of Maine has been 
bossed or that it will obey orders. 
Persons interested in the passage of a 
measure can no longer “fix it up” with 
one or two men and know that its 
passage is assured. It must be ad¬ 
mitted moreover, that much social 
welfare legislation, such as limiting the 
hours of labor for women, working¬ 
men’s compensation, and public utility 
regulations, have been put on the stat¬ 
ute books by the so-called inferior 
legislators. The efficient state budget 
system is also a product of the direct 
primary era. 

A majority of the state representa¬ 
tives are nominated without opposi¬ 
tion. For example, eighty-five of the 
one hundred and fifty-one Republican 
candidates were thus nominated in 
1922. These unopposed candidates 
are selected in the main by the same 
party committees and party influence 
that selected them under the conven¬ 
tion system. When it comes to the 
selection of candidates for the sixty-six 
contested positions, the independent 
and unbossed candidate has a much 
better chance under the direct primary 
than under the convention system. A 
good illustration of the possibility, 
through the direct primary, of nom¬ 
inating an independent candidate in a 
contest with a leader of the organiza¬ 
tion is seen in the recent victory'of 


Nelson over Viles in the second Maine 
Congressional District. 

(6) Has the Expense of Running 
for Office Been Increased by 
the Direct Primary? 

Reliable statistics on the amount of 
money spent under either the direct pri¬ 
mary or convention system in Maine 
are not available. The direct primary 
law limits the amount that may be 
expended by the candidate, but re¬ 
quires him to make a return to the 
Secretary of State of the amount ex¬ 
pended. Personal traveling expenses, 
postage and stationery, however, are 
exempted. The advantage to a can¬ 
didate of meeting the voter personally 
in the primary campaign is obvious, 
and the wealthy candidate has an op¬ 
portunity to spend a large amount for 
personal traveling expenses. It is 
doubtful whether candidates for the 
office of governor under the direct pri¬ 
mary have spent any more for traveling 
over the state, than was spent by Gov¬ 
ernors Burleigh and Fernald in their 
thoroughgoing canvas of the state un¬ 
der the convention system . 27 Oc¬ 
casionally in Maine a contest between 
factions for the control of the state 
organization led to the expenditure of 
large sums for securing pledged dele¬ 
gates. It is probably true that more 
money is spent by the average candi¬ 
date and less by the party organization 
under the direct primary than under 
the convention system. 

(7) What Effect Has the Direct 
Primary Had Upon Popular In¬ 
terest in Nominations? 

A compilation and analysis of the 
statistics filed in the office of the Secre¬ 
tary of State shows that in the first 
Republican primary, (1902) 50.7 per 

27 See Sam E. Connor’s account of Governor 
Fernald’s thoroughgoing canvas of the state, in 
the Lewiston Evening Journal, June 13, 1908. 


140 


The Annals of the American Academy 


cent of the vote polled at the election 
was cast at the primary. It increased 
to 60.5 per cent in 1916, and to 73.3 
per cent in 1922. It fell down to 41.9 
per cent in 1918 when Governor Mil- 
liken was nominated without opposi¬ 
tion. The highest proportion of the 
Democratic vote was cast in 1914, 
when with a real contest for the nomi¬ 
nation, 42.2 per cent of the September 
vote was cast at the June primaries, 
while the lowest was only 13.6 per cent 
in the primary of 1922. The analysis 
of the vote for county officers shows 
that rarely does the local contest bring 
out a big party vote. A primary in 
which there is no contest for the higher 
positions, that is, governor, United 
States senator and representative to 
Congress, as a rule fails to arouse public 
interest. The experience with the 
direct primary in Maine shows that the 
people will not generally become in¬ 
terested in nominating men for com¬ 
paratively insignificant offices. The 
direct primary functions less success¬ 
fully in the selection of candidates for 
county positions than for state and 
federal positions, if we may judge from 
the popular interest manifested. 

The Present State of Public Opin¬ 
ion in Maine with Regard to the 

Direct Primary 

Since the close of the World War a 
movement for the repeal of the direct 
primary law has been growing in 
Maine. The chief causes underlying 
the movement seem to be: First, the 
conviction in the minds of many that 
the direct primary has not sufficiently 
produced the betterment in govern¬ 
ment promised by its proponents; 
second, the reluctance on the part of 
many voters to go to the trouble of 
signing nomination papers and inform¬ 
ing themselves regarding the qualifica¬ 
tions of candidates to be voted on at 
the primaries; third, the natural hos¬ 


tility toward the primary held by the 
old line politician who sees in the 
present state of public indifference and 
confusion, an opportunity to restore 
the old convention system; fourth, the 
reactionary swing of the political pen¬ 
dulum which tends to place under a 
ban of disapproval the progressive 
measures of the Rooseveltian era; and 
fifth, the conviction in the minds of a 
number of people that the principle of 
representative government is superior 
to the principle of direct democracy in 
party affairs. 

The opponents of the direct primary 
were successful in securing the adop¬ 
tion of planks in both the Republican 
and Democratic platforms in 1922 for 
the repeal of the direct primary law, or 
at least the submission to the people of 
a bill to repeal the law. Since the April 
conventions however, the friends of the 
law have been making themselves 
heard especially in the rural districts 
and two of the leading organizations 
among the women of the state, the 
“League of Women Voters” and the 
“Maine Federation of Women’s Clubs” 
have passed resolutions favoring the 
retention of the law. In the light of 
the growing opposition to the repeal of 
the law it is probable that the next 
legislature will consider modification 
rather than repeal. Many advocate 
giving the party conventions the power 
to indicate their choice of candidates 
whose names would appear, labeled as 
the convention’s choice, on the ballot 
with others which have secured their 
places by means of nomination papers. 
It is probable that several minor 
changes looking toward the improve¬ 
ment of the primary law will be pre¬ 
sented to the legislature. For example: 
the extension of the registration law to 
towns of two thousand and under; the 
inclusion of Portland in the enrolment 
law; dispensing with the primary elec¬ 
tion in all cases where there is no con- 


The Direct Primary Law in Maine 


141 


test; and strengthening the corrupt 
practices act in its application to the 
direct primary. 

When the voters of Maine in 1911 
adopted the direct primary law, its 
more ardent proponents believed they 
were creating an almost perfect instru¬ 
ment of popular self-government. But 
having the limitations of all mere in¬ 
struments, the direct primary did not 
operate itself, and many of the promised 


benefits have not been fully realized. 
On the other hand, most of the dis¬ 
advantages predicted of it by its op¬ 
ponents have not materialized; and it 
has not been the failure which its pres¬ 
ent opponents would have us believe. 
If the writer interprets public opinion 
correctly, the people of Maine must be 
convinced that something better is 
being offered them before they will give 
up the present direct primary law. 


The Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary 

in New York State 

By Louise Overacker, M.A. 

Fellow in Political Science, The University of Chicago 


S INCE 1906 the direct primary has 
been a lively issue in New York 
politics. Governor Hughes’ strenuous 
efforts to pass such a law during his two 
terms (1907-1910) proved unsuccess¬ 
ful, but public attention was focussed 
upon the question to such an extent 
that the 1910 platforms of both the 
Republican and Democratic Parties 
contained planks advocating direct 
nominations, and in 1911 the Dix law 
passed the legislature. This law, how¬ 
ever, established the direct primary 
only in congressional, judicial, state- 
senatorial and assembly districts, and 
in cities and counties, leaving the 
power of the state convention over the 
state-wide ticket untouched, and it was 
not until 1913 that the advocates of 
the direct primary in New York State 
succeeded in putting through a meas¬ 
ure which extended the direct primary 
principle to state-wide nominations. 
In 1921, after having been used in four 
gubernatorial elections, the direct pri¬ 
mary was abandoned and the conven¬ 
tion restored for state-wide and judicial 
district nominations. It is therefore 
a fitting moment for some appraisal of 
the operation of the state-wide direct 
primary in that state. 

Arguments For and Against the 
Direct Primary 

At the time of its adoption many 
advantages were claimed for the direct 
primary, but the arguments in its favor 
may be summarized as follows: (1) 
that it would bring out a larger vote 
than an election for delegates to a 
nominating convention, and therefore 


would be more representative and 
democratic; (2) that superior candi¬ 
dates would be chosen; (3) that the 
power of the “boss” and the “ma¬ 
chine” would be broken or more easily 
opposed, and that the party organiza¬ 
tion would be made more responsible 
to the rank and file of the party. 

The opponents of the direct primary, 
on the other hand, argued: (1) that the 
ballot would be crowded with the 
names of publicity seekers; (2) that it 
would complicate still more the already 
complicated task of the voter; (3) 
that it was expensive to both the state 
and the individual candidates; (4) that 
party unity and harmony would be im¬ 
possible and that party responsibility 
would be destroyed. 

What light, if any, does an eight 
years’ trial of the direct primary throw 
upon the validity of these contentions? 
How far did it fulfil the claims of its 
supporters, and to what extent have the 
objections of its opponents proved well 
founded? A complete evaluation is im¬ 
possible with the evidence available, but 
some interesting results are reflected. 

Number of Candidates 

In the table on the next page is shown 
the number of candidates for the Re¬ 
publican and Democratic nominations 
for the seven important state offices. 1 
It is at once apparent that the direct 
primary ballot was not crowded with 
the names of notoriety seekers; in no 
case were there more than three candi¬ 
dates for a nomination and most con- 

1 Compiled from the New York State Legislative 
Manual. 


142 


Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary in New York 143 


Office 

1914 

1916 

1918 

1920 

Rep. 

Dem. 

Rep. 

Dem. 

Rep. 

Dem. 

Rep. 

Dem. 

Governor. 

3 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Lieutenant Governor. 

3 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

Secretary of State. 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Controller. 

3 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

Treasurer. 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

Attorney General. 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

State Engineer. 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 


tests were between two aspirants. On 
the other hand, does the fact that there 
were no contests whatever in thirty out 
of fifty-six cases, indicate that the 
direct primary was a mere farce at 
which the voters put their stamp of 
approval upon candidates already se¬ 
lected by the party organization? It 
is w r ell known that throughout the 
period of the operation of the direct 
primary, the parties held unofficial con¬ 
ferences and drew up unofficial “slates” 
which were afterward put upon the 
ballot by petition. In no case did a 
nominee with the support of the party 
organization fail of nomination, al¬ 
though in 1916 Senator Calder, the 
Republican organization candidate, 
came dangerously close to losing the 
nomination. Now this may indicate 
that the direct primary utterly failed 
to break, or w r eaken, the powder of the 
“boss,” but it may also indicate that, 
recognizing the pow T er which the direct 
primary put in the hands of the rank 
and file of the party membership, the 
“bosses” carefully felt the party pulse 
before making their choices. The 
mere fact that designations were made 
by unofficial conventions does not in 
itself indicate the breakdown of the 
direct primary; it is natural and ad¬ 
vantageous that such should be the 
case. The only danger is that the 
party organization may be able to force 
its selection upon an unwilling party 
and it is difficult to see how, under the 


direct primary, nominations could be 
forced upon a sufficiently unwilling 
party. No amount of primary legisla¬ 
tion can change a “Barkis is willin’” 
attitude in a political party; all that it 
can hope to do is to provide a weapon 
with wdiich the members of a party may 
protect themselves. The very fact 
that the weapon is possessed may be 
the reason why it is unnecessary to use 
it often. 

Interest of Voters 

Figures showing the size of the vote 
at direct primary elections give us some 
indication of the amount of interest 
which is taken in the primaries, and are 
especially significant when they can be 
compared with the vote for delegates 
to nominating conventions. In New 
York the latter figures are available for 
1912 only. It is unfortunate that we 
have not the figures for 1922 also, to 
give us some indication of the degree of 
interest displayed since the return to 
the convention system, but these have 
not yet been compiled. 2 

In the table on page 145, the total 
vote cast for delegates to the state con¬ 
ventions in 1912 and the total primary 
vote for governor, 1914-1920, have 
been compared to the total vote for 
governor at the general elections, 1912- 
1920. In addition, the three following 
typical groups of counties have been 
taken for more intensive study: (1) the 

2 November, 1922. 




































144 


The Annals of the American Academy 


five counties of New York City; (2) 
five other urban counties; (3) ten of 
the larger rural counties. To the 
most casual observer two things are 
apparent from the table on page 145: (1) 
Only a small proportion of the people 
voting at general elections voted in the 
party primaries; (2) a larger number 
voted in the direct primary than voted 
for delegates to party conventions in 
1912. The small size of the direct 
primary vote has been a distinct dis¬ 
appointment to those ardent advocates 
of direct nominations who were con¬ 
vinced that it would mean the democ¬ 
ratization of the party. In so far as 
any trend is indicated by these figures, 
they would seem to be even more dis¬ 
couraging, for they show a decreasing 
rather than increasing interest in party 
nominations. Upon closer analysis, 
however, it appears that several factors 
other than declining interest may have 
entered into the decreasing primary 
vote. It must be remembered that 
the years 1912-1914 marked a high 
water level in interest in party affairs 
because of the Progressive movement; 
this was followed by a “slump” in the 
interest of the rank and file which was 
naturally reflected in the primary vote. 
Then, too, it must not be forgotten 
that the enfranchisement of women 
brought a new element into the parties 
in 1918. It is well known that fewer 
women than men vote. In New York 
City in 1918 only 40 per cent of those 
registering were women; in 1920 only 
36 per cent. Is it also true that women 
are even more unlikely to vote in the 
primaries than in the general election? 
This has been the case in Illinois and it 
is reasonable to suppose that it is also 
true in New York. 3 

3 In the 1915 election for mayor of Chicago 33 
per cent of the votes in the primaries were cast by 
women, while 37 per cent of those cast in the 
final election were cast by women. See Grace 
Abbott, Are Women a Force for Good Government? 
in 4 National Municipal Review 437. 


The see-saw nature of the primary 
figures may perhaps be explained by 
the fact that 1916 and 1920 were presi¬ 
dential years, and in those years many 
people are drawn to the polls by their 
interest in national affairs who also cast 
a vote for governor, although they have 
not voted in the primaries and would 
not participate in a purely state election. 
It may also be explained by the fact that 
in those years there were no important 
contests in the Democratic Party. 

An interesting point brought out by 
these figures is that the rural counties 
show a consistently higher primary 
vote than the cities. Apparently the 
farmers are not going to permit them¬ 
selves to be ruled by city “bosses” if 
they can help it. 

On the whole, these figures show a 
disappointing lack of interest in direct 
nominations, but the direct primary 
enthusiast may gather some comfort 
from the fact that they do indicate 
appreciably more interest in the direct 
primary than in the 1912 election for 
delegates to the state conventions. 
And every gain in popular interest in 
party affairs is of importance, for the 
larger the number of people participat¬ 
ing in party primaries, the greater the 
likelihood that nominations will repre¬ 
sent the real sentiment of the rank and 
file of the party membership. 

Comparison Between Republican 
and Democratic Vote 

A separate analysis of the primary 
vote of each of the two major parties,. 
1916-1920, show^s a decidedly larger vote 
in the Republican than in the Demo¬ 
cratic Party. In the table on page 146 
are given the Republican and Demo¬ 
cratic vote for governor at the general 
election and at the direct primary, and 
the percentage of the primary vote to 
the general election vote, 1916-1920. 4 

4 Compiled from the New York Legislative 
Manuals. 


Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary in New York 


H 

S 

H 

w 

£ 

£ 

K 

H 

w 

H,o 

H H 
O H 
O O 


o 

Cl 

03 


t 

rtf 


H 

O 

w 

' a 
K 
O 
fc 
« 

H 


•«) 

« 

W 

fc 

W 


>o 

n w 

O w 

« h 

o o 

H 
H £ 
O ^ 

> s 

K « 
« Ah 
H 

s 


« 

Ah 

►3 

<3 

H 

O 

H 

H 

n 

H 


H 

w 

Eh 

h 

o 

H 
0 
<3 
Eh 
£ 
H 
O 
« 
H 

O Ah 

a 

« K 

- Eh 

2 2 
03 

rtf < 

«© 

hr O'! 

22 

g- 

gS 

SO 

O 09 

O » 


H 

Eh 

h<! 

Eh 

co 


Eh 
U 
H 
d 

w 
2 j 

Eh 

® 5 

H g 
Eh fc 
4 » 

DO 

H 

H S 

H W 


« 
o 
fc 
« 
H 
> 
o 

»o 


Eh 

OS 

H 

o 


o 

> 


ce 

o 

fc 

h 

Eh 

O 

> 


4 
Eh 
O 

H 

H ^ 
W H 
Eh O 

dH 

S5 

M 

(5 

o 

a 

CO 

a 

a 

p 

< 

H 


o 

Cl 

03 


-tf 

a 

Sh 

o 

a 

Ih 

<» 

> 

o 

O 

o 

r-t 

-u 

O 

> 


00 

t-H 

05 


-4-> 

d 

Ah 

O 

d 

A- 

15 

> 

O 

O 

Ah 

O 

«4-H 

15 

O 

> 


CO 

r-H 

05 


Ah 

O 

a 

Ah 

15 

> 

o 

a 

Ah 

o 

«H-H 

15 

+-> 

o 


t-H 

05 


Ah 

O 

d 

Ah 

15 

> 

O 

O 

Ah 

O 


O 

> 


<M 

<rH 

03 


Eh 

o 

HH 

<0 

-u 

o 


68 


•a a 

2 o 
a> *43 
d o 

<D 15 

Oh 


0 >> d 

o J3 2 

a> S'-tf 

Ah g O 

*r .d a5 

Q ArH 


68 


as b 
2 2 
05 4^> 

gS 

Oh 


^ >>b 

o a 2 

<u So 
(-go 

Q —'.a <u 

tr —1 

AhW 


68 


o 

Cl 


Cl 

Cl 


rtf 

Cl 


K3 

0 

WOOtHNn 


t-H 

1000N03 2 

(N 03 00CO_l> q5 

CO_ 

T—t 

<M* 

nT 

^ooVoa 

rH O0 CO 1C 03 2 

co 

03 

°l 

(N 

•O rH £ 

of 

t-H 



rH t-H K h- HH *-H 00 t— i CO CO CO 
^OOiOOHtOOCOHMN 
CO rH N ca 03 rf Tf IC 00 hJh_ 

O* iC O CO* rH o" o‘ CO 00* 00* 

COC3TjHrHCO(M(NCO<N(MrH 


rH 

03 

IO 

00 

(N 


0 

co 

03 

0 

to 

rH 

IO 

00 

br 

0 


CO 

H 

co 

03 


10 

rH 

to 

0 

Ol 


00 

0 

rfH 

<N 

rH 

CO 

CO 


co 

CO 

0 

°3_ 

CD 


IO 

0 

t> 


CO 

10 

05 

03 

rH 


00 

1> 

10 

10 

CO 

O* 

CO* 

rH 

Ol* 

CO 

0 

CO* 

oi" 


CD 

0 

TjH* 

00 " 

to - 

oi 

rJH* 

03* 

HH 


00 


rH 

Ol 

CO 

1—1 

rH 

<N 

CO 


rH 








10 

<N 

rH 


















O 

CO 


hhH 

<N 


rt< 

CO 


co 

r+< 


rH 

p- 

r}< 

<N 

to 

03 

O 

00 

to 

CM 

05 

05 

CO 

T#< 


CO 

co 

rH 

tH 

HH 

CO 

(H 

rH 

<N 

rH 

0-1 

05 

rH 

05 


CO 

co 

05 


co 

N 

co 

rH 

Tf 


°l 

CO_ 

rH 

00 

ID 

GO 

GO 

P- 

CD 


rH 

C5_ 

CD 

CO 

1^ 

03_ 

CO 

IO* 

rH 


> 0 " 

co* 

10 " 

00* 



CO 

to" 


co 

CD 

co" 

co* 

O* 

co* 

CO 

03 

CO 


CO 

oa 


CO 


05 

rH 

CM 

rH 

<M 

rH 

rH 

Cl 

Ol 

0-1 

rH 

rH 

05 

CO 


rH 




rH 











of 




















»o 

Tt< 

CO 

(M 

Tf 

>D 


IO 

<N 

03 

CD 

io 

rH 

Ol 

CO 



hr 

GO 

(M 

>0 

CD 


(M 

CO 

ID 

<M 

03 

rf 

05 

rH 

t' 

CD 

Ol 


GC 

01 

GO 

00 

0 

CD 


Tf 

01 



ID 

03 

CO 

CO 

co 

to 

o_ 


cq 

Ol 

CD 

CO 

0 * 

05 

03* 

!>-* 

s 

ID 

CD 

co* 

00* 

CO 

co" 

CO* 

to" 

t>* 

00* 

00 " 

rH 

!>•" 

to 

co 

<M 

<N 

co 

rH 

Ol 

rH 

00 


rH 







rH 


CO 

cq 

rH 


















00 


CO 

OJ 


CO 


CO 

co 


General 

Election 

00 CO COCOCOCOOOCO CO rH (M 0 co rH 03 rH CD <M TH 

CO CO 1-HO3O31DC0CO CO CO CO tr CO CO <N hr 00 03 0 

tr I> hr CO 03 ID hr 0_ CC CO rHt^^rHfN O Ohr^CD 

ID t)T 03* CO* 03 CO* O* CO* <M* CO* Hit rH of Ol* CO* O* rtf* of rH 

t-H tH 03 rtf ^0 CO *D ^D rtf t^ Ol rH rH rH rH Ol tH t-H t-H 

tr 1> Ol rH rH 

rH 

Direct 

Primary 

Election 

(M O OOOO^OtOrH lOCODMOCOMODNiO 

05 CO to CO CD CO (M (MC0»OCD(M00 00 00 05C0C0 

10 rH to oq co oo co rH oo nwn tc_q^qoco^ 

1> CD cqc^HHOiV co" co" l>" CO to" co" co" h |> tJh" iO 

00 05 (M CO rH H Tft rH 

Tf rH 


34 

33 

37 

33 


General 

Election 

*D (N Mrtf CDHION (M 03 03 rtf CO 00 O rtf O CO CO 

hr Ol rtf hr ID CO ID <M rtf 01 (N 03 rtf 00 CO VH CO O 

00 rtf Cl (M rH ID CO Cl WNrtf^N l> ■"ctfiD h~ CO h © 

CO CO CO ID »c" O* CO* of CO* Cl* CO 03 rtf' H O* CO* CO >D o 

00 Cl COrtfO3C0rtfrtf CO rH rH HHHHHHH 

rtf CD Cl rH 

tH 

Direct 

Primary 

Election 

id rH COcOiDClrHCl rtf03 03Cl«D03C100>DCO 

O rtf OOOCOOtrhr tH Cl hr 03 CO 00 Cl CO 00 rtf rH 

Cl hr MONTOhO O^rtf CO O^CO^O 00 rtf rH 00 1> 

Cl hr h-T O* ID* 03 ID hr* CO* rtf ID* Cl rtf* ID* CO ID ID Cl rtf* 

O O O3C1C0 rH rH rtf 

ID Cl 

68 

16 

19 

17 

21 


r—' a 
2§ 


Ah 

O 

g 

+3 15 Hr- 

O 


to 

rH 

CO 

co 


ID 

CO 

00 


Cl 

Cl 

O 

ID 

03 

o 

Cl 

to 

to 

03 

00 

tr 

o 

CO 

(r 

rH 

rtf 

oo 

o 

03 

rtf 

rH 

rtf 

o 

CD 

tr 

CD 

CO 

o 

co 

hr_ 

?H 

th 

cq 

Cl 

ID 

rH 

to 

tr 

o_ 

CO 


03_ 

to 

o 

GO 

CD_ 

•tf 

C3_ 

ID* 

Cl* 

h-* 

00* 

ID* 

CO* 

CO* 

c o 

co* 

rH 

to" 

00* 

Cl* 

o' 

o* 

<m" 

rH 

co* 

tr* 

rtf 

tr 

Cl 

co 

03 

Cl 

CO 

CO 

t-H 

T—| 

rH 


Ttf 

r-H 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rtf 


CO 

co 

Cl 






rH 












OOjnii® 

a a a o o 
MHH-rnO’33 
ccoa t h 
'3 O o ^ <D 


(H 

Fh 

'A 

a 

o 

o 



<N loco 03 CO 03 
T)H wo CO CO O 
03 rH CD COt>t^ 

03(N*CO*(M*0*I> 

CO rH rH 


OOrflHCOHrH'HHiOO'O 

OC33(MI>OOCOTjH<MCOI>f^ 

co^ooocoao<Ncoc3T*H03 


HH1 
(N 


\ CO 1 


<(N r}< 


gsf & 

« t« C3 >, 

r o s a . w a 
>^cS^h|-2§§S 


Ah 

15 

eS 

Wig 


“ o 

3 a 


<n 

.O 

HH 

P 

a 

o 

U 

*a 

H 

a 

Ah 


o a .b 

E 


g { 

H 


2 a 

a I" 

2 a « 

d 4 - > 

-A3 S 
■+J C3 

d^3 


>> 

15 

a a 

.. o a 2 

^ 2 £P‘E . 
a <3 a _gA 3 
*o.P a 


a 

o 

*» 

M 


a H 
m ° a 
o 2-9 

a a ® 

Eh as. a 


. a ag ^ a-a^^^ a^ 3 


15 » 

s c 

d q, 

o 

Ah (ij 

15 

V4-H 

15 

Ah Eh 
> 


m 


H 


si 

aJ O 

JT rd 
d 4 -^ 
d ^ 

d ^ 
d « 

d> 
Ah 

3 

bO 
. d 

Ah O 
AH --h 
FH Q 
>>15 

I-Q Q) 

05 w 

•—1 Ah 
*d ^5 

& b 
a <u 
o w 

O 0 ) 

acb 

TS 

S-d 

O <0 
Eh 03 

h - 1 a 

oa 

Eh O 

a a 

Sg 

03 g 

I 4— 1 

rJH 

rH +? 

03 2 

t-h b 

Eh sT 
O rO 

•*5 +i 

« 2 

« b 

a o 

. Ah 

b ° 

d!* 

a & 

Ah CD 

JZ g 


T3 

d 

d 


m 

15 

Ah 

^ d 
c<, bfl 

r-HCd 

03 (0 
’“‘hO 
00 ^ 
a' 
o 


o 

;o3 


HH ! 

a 1—1 

£o3 

>rH 

o-S-3 
o a s 
o s 

■5 

Tj <& 
'd » 


15 

+2 

d 


15 
rd 
^ 05 ^ 

4b -P.CO 
& 

15 TS ^5 

'■■y 


•+H 

a 

bfl 




2 ' 

o£ | bb 

%S 2o 

® r ^ a 03 

■g^o-2 

W A-h ^ 4^ 


> o 

2 

-r. > 03 
g So 

^ 03 


(h 

a 

bd 

ca 

n> 

a3 

H 


^ rH 4_5 


_ d 

o 15 

8 « 
■ z m 

a « 

a 


11 


145 




































































146 


The Annals of the American Academy 




Republican 



Democratic 


Year 

General 

Primary 

Per Cent of 

iTPnprn 1 

General 

Primary 

Per Cent of 
Gpnoral 

■ 

Election 

Election 

Election Vote 

Election 

Election 

Election Vote 

1916. 

835,820 

298,897 

36 

686,862 

158,718 

23 

1918. 

956,034 

414,350 

43 

1,009,936 

232,513 

21 

1920. 

1,335,878 

414,003 

31 

1,261,812 

166,028 

13 


These figures would seem to indicate 
that the more complete the control of 
the “organization,” the less the popular 
interest in the primary; certainly the 
Democratic “machine” remains intact. 
It should be pointed out, however, that 
the Democratic Party was particularly 
fortunate during this period in the 
selection of its standard bearers. 

Type of Candidates Selected 

This brings us to a consideration of 
the type of candidate selected during 
the operation of the direct primary. It 
is unfortunate that it has been impos¬ 
sible to make an exhaustive study of 
candidates for nominations; but a 
glance at the names of the contestants 
for the more important state offices indi¬ 
cates that the direct primary accom¬ 
plished no revolution in the type of candi¬ 
date and that the general average was 
as high as under the convention system. 

Expense of Direct Primary 

The opponents of the direct primary 
made the objection that it would be 
expensive to both the candidates and to 
the state. When one looks for evi¬ 
dence on this point one is somewhat at 
a loss. Candidates were required to 
file statements of their expenditures, 
but these were carelessly drawn and 
sometimes intentionally misleading. 
No doubt large amounts were spent by 
some candidates, 7 but that lavish ex- 

7 See H. Feldman, The Direct Primary in New 
York State, 11 American Political Science Review 
494. 


penditures won the nomination is not 
so apparent. No more satisfactory 
data are available in regard to the cost 
to the state. In 1918 a special com¬ 
mittee of the New York Senate com¬ 
piled figures showing the cost of 
primary elections, 1914-1917, to have 
been about one dollar per vote. By 
themselves, however, these figures are 
not significant; for the repeal of the 
direct primary means the substitution 
of an election for convention delegates, 
and it is difficult to see how this election 
could be conducted with less expense 
than the direct primary. 

Conclusions 

In conclusion, it.may be said that the 
results of the operation of the state¬ 
wide direct primary in New York 
State were largely negative: it did not 
fulfil the prophecies of its enemies, 
neither did it meet the expectations of 
its most ardent advocates. It did not 
result in a ballot crowded with the 
names of mere publicity seekers, and it 
did not destroy party harmony or 
responsibility; the work of the voter 
was no more complicated than under a 
convention system requiring the elec¬ 
tion of several sets of convention dele¬ 
gates, and it is doubtful whether the 
financial objections can be sustained. 
On the other hand, it did not result in 
a vastly greater degree of interest; the 
power of the “machine” was not 
broken, and no striking change was 
effected in the type of candidate. The 
























Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary in New York 147 

only positive results were a slight in- These are intangible results perhaps, 
crease in popular interest and a slightly but very important ones, and in the 
greater degree of responsiveness on the opinion of the writer they were suffi- 
part of the leaders to popular demands, cient to warrant a longer period of trial. 




The Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa, 

1908-1922 

By Frank E. Horack 

Professor of Political Science, State University of Iowa, Iowa City 


T HE law authorizing direct primary 
elections in Iowa was passed in 
1907, after a period of five years of 
agitation and debate, both in and out 
of the General Assembly. Its passage 
was heralded as one of the big achieve¬ 
ments of the progressive wing of the 
Republican Party in Iowa. The first 
trial of the system was made in 1908, 
the year following its enactment. 
In the fourteen years which have 
elapsed since the enactment of the 
law it has been used eight times, and 
it is therefore possible to draw some 
fairly accurate conclusions as to its 
workings. 

Provisions of the Iowa Primary 

Law 

The Iowa law is compulsory and 
state-wide for all state and local 
officers (except judicial and munici¬ 
pal offices) filled by popular vote at 
the general election. Candidates for 
United States senators and congress¬ 
men are chosen at the primary; and 
presidential electors, delegates to the 
county convention, and precinct party 
committeemen are elected by the 
primary voters. 

The primary in Iowa is conducted as 
a regular election. The voter’s oral 
choice of ballot, of which a record is 
made, determines his party affiliation. 
Party affiliation, however, may be 
changed by filing a declaration of 
change with the county auditor ten 
days prior to the primary election, 
or by taking an oath, if challenged 
when offering to vote, that one has in 
good faith changed his party affiliation. 


Other provisions relative to the 
manner of filing nomination petitions 
and the like need not be given here. 
The names of the candidates for 
United States senator and state offices 
are placed in alphabetical order in the 
county in which the party they repre¬ 
sent cast the largest vote at the pre¬ 
ceding general election; in the other 
counties a system of rotation is em¬ 
ployed so that each candidate will 
appear first among those seeking 
nomination for the same office as often 
as the rotation system permits. The 
successful candidate must receive 35 
per cent of his party vote, cast for 
the office he seeks in order to be nomi¬ 
nated. 

Number of Candidates 

At the time of the enactment of the 
Iowa primary law it was predicted 
that, owing to the large number of 
office seekers, the voters would be so 
confused and disgusted that the system 
would not accomplish its purpose. 

By reference to the table, p. 150, 
it will be seen that out of the eight 
offices there listed, only four times have 
more than four candidates been offered 
for any office. Nominations for the 
office of United States senator have 
been made six times under the primary 
law, but only once (during the war) 
has the nomination been uncontested 
in the Republican primaries. Never 
before 1922 have there been more than 
two candidates. The campaign for 
the nomination of United States sena¬ 
tor in the Republican primary of 1922 
attracted nation-wide attention and 


148 


The Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa 


149 


has been one of the chief causes for 
the renewed agitation against the 
primary law. 

In 1920 Colonel Smith W. Brookhart 
contested with Senator Cummins for 
the Republican nomination, making 
his campaign largely in opposition to 
the Esch-Cummins railroad law, and 
certain phases of the Federal Reserve 
Act. He was unsuccessful, but polled 
nearly one hundred thousand votes. 
When Senator Kenyon resigned early 
in 1922 Mr. Brookhart promptly 
announced himself as a candidate. 

The leaders of the Republican Party 
organization characterized Mr. Brook¬ 
hart as radical and dangerous, and 
sought to checkmate his ambition to go 
to the United States Senate. It is 
asserted that the organization leaders 
encouraged numerous candidates to 
enter the field in the anticipation that 
no one would receive the necessary 
35 per cent of the vote cast, and thus 
leave the convention free to name the 
candidate. Much to their surprise 
and chagrin however, Mr. Brookhart, 
in a field of six candidates, carried 
seventy-six of the ninety-nine counties 
of the state, ran second in all the rest 
but two, and won the nomination by 
42 per cent of the vote. 

When the state convention of the 
Republican Party met following the 
primary, the “standpat” wing of the 
party was in complete control, and 
they took the occasion to show their 
dislike of the man who had made his 
own platform and won the nomination 
without their approval. The con¬ 
vention refused to call upon Mr. Brook¬ 
hart for a speech, or to indorse his 
candidacy; demanded the repeal of 
the primary, and inserted a plank 
against socialists and demagogues. 

One of the organs of the “standpat” 
element, speaking editorially of the 
platform, said, “It turns down every 
plank which the radicals had proposed 


and endorsed almost everything to 
which they objected. ... It is the 
voice of the people speaking through 
their accredited representatives chosen 
by the primary to attend the state 
convention and it adequately and 
correctly represents the views and 
wishes of the Republican voters of 
this state.” Again the same paper 
declared that, “the last so-called Re¬ 
publican primary was a rank fraud 
and the candidate for United States 
senator was dishonestly nominated.” 
It is somewhat difficult for an im¬ 
partial student of politics to see how the 
candidate was “ dishonestly nominated” 
while the delegates who made up the 
county conventions (which in turn 
select the delegates to the state con¬ 
vention) who were voted for at the 
same time were “the voice of the 
people.” Most of the people who 
voted in the primary were interested 
in the contest for the senatorship and 
not in delegates to the county con¬ 
vention. 

Competition for nominations to 
state offices has been healthy in the 
Republican primaries. In eight pri¬ 
maries there have been twenty-one 
candidates for the nomination for 
governor: only twice has the primary 
been without a contest for this office 
in the Republican Party. The least 
contested office has been that of state 
treasurer (see table, p. 150). Seven 
candidates for the nomination to the 
office of state superintendent of public 
instruction is the largest number so 
far offered for any one state office in 
the primary. 

The Size of the Primary Vote 

One of the objections frequently 
urged against the primary in Iowa 
is that so few turn out to vote. The 
number of candidates for nomination 
at the primary does not necessarily 
determine the size of the vote, though 


150 


The Annals of the American Academy 


CM 

CM 

05 

T-l 

ot 

§ 


B 

O 

M 

B 

B 

o 

w 

o 

< 

W 

« 

o 

B 

3 

a 

M 

« 

Ph 


E-l 

◄ 

o 

m 

B 

H 

O 

> 

B 

O 

« 

B 

0 

s 

0 

0 

O 

H 

Q 

55 

< 

aa 

B 

O 

t-h 

B 

B 

O 

B 

02 

g 


« 

O 

H 

fc 

B 

02 

m 


« 

o 

B 

03 

B 

a 


H 

o 

B 

O 

« 

B 

ffl 

a 

0 

o 

(5 

►H 

£ 

o 

w 

02 

B 

0 

« 

H 


00 

B 

M 

« 

3 

a 

M 

Ph 

0 

H 

< 

« 

O 

o 

a 

B 

Q 


03 

B 

M 

0 

3 

a 

M 

Ph 

Ph 

55 

H 

O 

M 

0 

» 

P 

B 

B 

Pi 


0361 

jCjUUII-IJ 

t^U8A3g 


8161 

Axbuiuj 

qws 


9161 

AJ'BUXUJ 

TOR 


H6X 

TO n< R 


3161 

■/Cxbuiii^ 

P^PLL 


0161 

Xjbuiu^ 

puoobg 


8061 

XlBUIUtJ 


3361 

Xxbuii.ij 

qxqsia 


0361 

Ajbuiuj 

qqU9A9g 


8X61 

Axbuiuj 

qx x is 


9I6X 

AjtUUIUjJ 

WM 


H6X 

XJBUIUfJ 

qx-moa 


3X6X 

Xjbuiuj 

P J RL 


0X6X 

Ajbuiuj 

puoobg 


806X 

iCJBuiuj; 

XSJij 


336X 

05 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CM 

t-H 

o 

ip 

O 

H< 

H< 

lO 

H< 

00 

CO 

00 

Aauuiuj 

rH 05 rH 

cq 

rH t>» rH 

iq 

rH 05 rH 

cq 

rH lO 

rH 00 


05* 

H< 

H< 

CO" 

U9 

H< 

50 

H< 

lO 

H< 

«o“ 

H< 

hX 

H< 


lO 

rH 

*o 

00 * 

co 


CO 

CP 

o 

CO* 

co 


50 

1C 

00 

co* 

CO 


05 

CM 


CO 

CO 


o 

t-H 

CO 

CO* 

CO 


o 

Hi 

co* 

CO 


1> 

tr 

03 

50* 

CO 


00 

rH 

00 

CO 

co 


CO 


05 

CO 


H< 

co 

00 

co* 

CO 


05 

05 

tr 

CO* 

co 


H< 

CO 

co* 

CO 


o 


co 

CO 


CM 

05 

Hi 

CO* 

co 


H 1 

o 

© 

50 

CO 


• 

. 

t-H 

lO 

rH 

05 

05 

CO 

• 

• 

05 

CO 

H< 

CM 

o 

CO 

• 

• 

rH C-. 

hX 

l-H rH 

<N 

rH O T-H 

CM* 

H< rH 

CM* 

rH 

CM* 

t-H N 

o 

1> 


. 

CD 

rH 

CM 

t-H 

CM 

CO 

• 

• !>■ 

t> 

O 

IO 

CO 

05 

• 

• W N W 

rH CM 

O CM 

lO CM 

IO rH 


• 

CO* 

05* 

o" 

l>“ 

l> 

rt^ 



CO 

1>- 

CO 

CO 

CD 


co 

05 

00 

i> 

50 


CM 


o 

CO 

tr* 

*o 


H< 

05 

hX 

50 


00 

Hi 

hX 

50 


CM 


05 

CO 

CO 

CD 

05 

o 

05 


iq th 

lO t-H 

lO rH 

00 

CM* 


hX 

co" 

50 

lO 

50 

IO 


. 

CM 

T-H 


CM 

00 


iO 

• 

• lO 

05 

(N 

O 

<N 

r> 


• 

• co iq h 

50 rH 

l> T-H 

cq 

rH GO 

<N O 

t-H CD 

* 

t-" 

!>■" 

co" 

i'-" 

co" 

r*T 

co" 






TtH 




CO 

50 

co 

CD 

O 

CD 

o 

o 

CO 

CD 

00 

N 

CM 

<N 


o 

LO rH 

O t-H 

o 

T-H 00 T-H 

LO rH 

00 rH 

50 CM 

05 

oT 

o" 


i>* 

i>* 



co" 


LQ 



rJT 

tJT 




co 


o 

iO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

co 


oo 

rH 

iq 

co" 

oo 

CM 


CM 

hX 

H< 

CM 


CM 


*o 

CO 

cq 

t-H 

00 

CM 


50 

CO 

cq 

hX 

h< 

CM 


CM 


CM 

00 

cq 

co* 

CO 

CM 


CM 


t-H 

CD 

00 

Tt< 

CO 

co 

cc 


50 

CD 

CO 

t-H 

t- 

LO 

05 

CM* ^ 

co* ^ 

CM* N 

05* ^ 

CD~ 

rH 

rH 

05 

00 

00 

cm 

cm 

rH 

T-H 

t-H 


<q 

co 

H< 

CM 


CO 


05 

00 

H< 

t- 

fr 

CM 


CM 


05 

co 

o_ 

hX 

00 


CO 


«o 


00 


o 

CO 

CO 

00 

CD 

LO 

05 

(N 

05 

]> 

CM 

00 

t»* ^ 

t>* 

o* ^ 

00 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 


CO 

rH 

03 

T-H 

CM 


CM 


H< 

co 

00 

00* 


50 

CM 

O 


H< 


CM 

rH 

05 

t»" 


co 

co 

00 

f-~ 

CM 

CM 


CO 


50 

05 

oo 

05* 

05 


CM 


O 

CO 

cq 

05 


fr 

H< 

Hi 

1C 

00 


CO 


00 

oo 

05 

o* 

05 


co 


o 

CO 

t> 

C-* 

05 



CD 

oo 

oo 

05 

• 

05 

CM 

o 


• 

. LO 

00 

CD 

05 

• 

• M CM* ^ 

o* 1-1 

TlX 10 

nT 


XtT 

CO 

CM 

CM 


CO 

oo 

05 

CO 

CM 


oo 

H* 

© 

05* 


CM 


o 

oo 

cq 

05* 

oo 


CO 


05 

t-H 

CM 

t-H 

00 


CM 


o 

05 

oo 

co" 

co 


CO 


50 

co 

cq 

hX 

co 


H< 


>o 

00 

© 

co* 

CO 


co 

H< 

iq 

CD 

*o 


CO 

05 

CO 

T-H 

iO 


CM 

iq 

00* 

H< 


CM 


O 

o 

05 

co* 


co 

cq 

CO 

50 


co 


co 

iO 


o 

H< 

00 

O* 

50 


LO 



CM 


CM 

05" CO 

CM* »- 

00 

00 

rH 

50 

TfT 


CM 


50 

CO 

oo 

CM 

O 

CD 

05 

LO 

CM 

00 

oo 

CD 

rH' » 

rH* « 

co" 

cm" 

o 

GO 

N 

CD 

CM 

T-H 

rH 

rH 


CM 


© 

00* 

co 


CO 

CO 

05 

T-H 

CO 


CM 

50 


05 

LO 


CM 


05 

CO 

© 

hX 

co 


CO 

05 

-B 

c3 

• rH 

o 0 

. cS 

o « 



c n 

d) 

HH 

aS 


CQ 

a> 

HH 

as 


CQ 

a> 

H-> 

aS 


CQ 

a> 

HH 

aS 


CQ 

(D 


CQ 

aS 


CQ 

<D 

-M 



rs 


rs 


2 


12 


2 



aS 


a> 

H-» 

'S 

0 

0) 

hh 

'S 

0 

a> 

•0 

0 

o 

H— 1 

70 

0 

<D 

TS 

0 

a> 

"3 

<D 

'S 

05 

o 

aS 

o 

aS 

o 

aS 

o 

aS 

o 


HH 

cS 

o 


0 


> 

o 

> 

o 

> 

o 

> 

o 

> 

o 

> 

o 

Eh 

o 

0 

o 

HH 

O 

L-H 

o 

o 

£ 

Hz 

o 

Eh 

L-T 

o 

o 

HH 

O 

Eh 

T*H 

o 

o 

£ 

cS 

H-> 

O 

Eh 

t+h 

o 

o 

■4H 

O 

Eh 

«r-i 

O 

o 

«H-C 

O 

o 

> 

H-» 

O 

Eh 

L-H 

o 

o 

£ 

> 

c3 

-B 

O 

Eh 


B 

o 

HH 

B 

B 

o 

B 

O 


B 

O 

H-> 

ca 

0 

05 

02 

02 


B 

O 

0 

B 

05 

> 

o 

O 


So 


as 

H-0 

CQ 


c3 

<D 

Ph 

o 

<D 

m 


u 

o 

H-J 

"3 

<D 

c3 

m 


Ph 

0) 

Ph 

CQ 

aJ 

a> 

Ph 

H 


aS 

HH> 

CQ 
































































The Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa 


151 


as a rule contested nominations poll 
a larger vote than uncontested ones 
(see table, p. 150, bearing in mind that 
women have not voted in the primary 
elections of Iowa prior to 1922). 
According to table on page 150 it is 
evident that presidential election years 
seem to bring out more candidates for 
state offices than do the off years, and 
the number of votes cast seems to rise 
and fall accordingly in Republican 
primaries. 

Thus it would appear that national 
politics stimulate an unusual interest 
in Iowa. This has been especially 
in evidence in the primary of 1922. 
In the general election of 1920 Senator 
Cummins received 528,499 votes while 
Governor Kendall received but 513,- 
118. . In the primary of 1922 Governor 
Kendall sought renomination and 
though unopposed, he received over 
43,000 more votes than the lowest 
ranking candidate on the state ticket 
and 5,000 more than the next highest. 
Yet the Governor fell 37,000 votes 
short of the total vote cast for the six 
candidates for the office of United 
States senator. Thus 61 per cent 
of the Republican vote cast for Senator 
Cummins in the general election of 
1920 was voted at the primary to 
nominate a successor to Senator Ken¬ 
yon ; while only 55 per cent of the vote 
cast for Governor Kendall in 1920 was 
polled for him in the primary election 
of 1922. During the past fourteen 
years, the office of governor has polled 
on the average about 70 per cent of the 
vote cast for the office in the general 
election, while the percentage for the 
minor state offices has varied from 
60 to 65 per cent. The percentage 
in 1920 was very low, being only 41 
per cent for governor and as low as 
31 per cent for some of the minor state 
offices; this is easily explained, how¬ 
ever, by the fact that the women voted 
in the general election of 1920 but not 


in the primary of the same year. In 
like manner the high percentage of 
1912 (98 per cent for governor) is 
explained by the split in the Republican 
Party through the organization of the 
Progressive Party after the primary 
had been held. Normally, only from 
65 to 70 per cent of those eligible have 
voted at the general elections, and the 
aversion of many to making a declara¬ 
tion of party affiliation no doubt keeps 
a large percentage of those who vote at 
the general election from voting in 
the primary. 

Is the Voting Intelligent? 

Granting that it would be highly 
desirable to have a larger percentage 
of the voters participate in the pri¬ 
maries, what evidence is there to 
support the charge frequently made 
that most of those who do vote, vote 
unintelligently? The alphabetical ar¬ 
rangement of names on the ballot 
always favored those of the top of the 
list. To remedy this situation, the 
system of rotation referred to above 
was adopted. It is now said that 
candidates for nomination, knowing 
in advance the counties in which their 
names will be at the head of the list, 
devote their campaign energy to the 
other counties, feeling assured that 
wherever their names are first they will 
win without effort. The writer has no 
data at hand to either prove or dis¬ 
prove this assertion. No doubt many 
electors will vote for the candidate at 
the top of the list when all are wholly 
unknown to them. But where the 
issue has been made clear to the voter, 
as in the primary campaign for United 
States senator in 1922, a consciousness 
of purpose in voting seems evident. 
That one candidate in a field of six 
should get 42 per cent of the vote cast 
and carry seventy-six out of ninety- 
nine counties cannot be attributed to 
place on the ballot or to chance. 


152 


The Annals of the American Academy 


The total primary vote tends to 
diminish from the top of the ballot 
downwards, though contests usually 
raise the rank of the office above its 
position on the ballot. 

The fact seems evident that the 
public is not greatly concerned about 
who is nominated for the minor state 
offices; and so unless the candidates 
for these offices are well known in the 
state or conduct a vigorous publicity 
campaign, the voter is apt for want 
of knowledge, to cast his vote for the 
one at the head of the list or pass the 
office altogether. The fact that thirty- 
seven thousand more persons expressed 
a choice among the six candidates for 
United States senator in 1922 than 
voted for governor is evidence that 
the campaign for the senatorship had 
impressed itself upon the mind of the 
voter, whereas the nominations for 
state offices with but three contests for 
minor offices failed to impress them. 

Primary Campaign Expenses 

The opponents of the Iowa primary 
law frequently speak of it as an ex¬ 
pensive institution, which makes it 
impossible for men without means to 
become candidates for office. Cam¬ 
paigning for the nomination for a 
state office if contested, is largely a 
matter of advertising, since the candi¬ 
dates can meet personally but a small 
percentage of the voters. Some news¬ 
papers, however, will give considerable 
publicity to “pet” candidate which is 
not paid for as political advertisement. 

The law of Iowa requires candidates 
to file a statement of campaign ex¬ 
penditures in both primary and general 
elections within ten days after such 
elections; but there is no limit upon 
the amount which he may spend. 

The cost of candidacy is often very 
large—larger than the candidates can 
afford. It is doubtful if all candidates 
report their expenditures. The Demo¬ 


cratic candidates for state offices sel¬ 
dom spend much money nor do they 
spend much in the congressional dis¬ 
tricts which are solidly Republican; 
but there are one or two congressional 
districts in which a Democrat feels 
that he has a fighting chance and in 
those he may spend a few hundred 
dollars. In the Republican primary 
campaign for the nomination of United 
States senator in 1922, six contesting, 
the smallest amount reported as spent 
was $118.68, while the largest amount 
was $6,869.88. The successful candi¬ 
date reported $453.98 of which he 
claimed the Spanish War Veterans 
contributed $112, his home town $75, 
and the remainder represented his 
personal expenditures. He, however, 
had the active support of the. most 
influential farm paper in the state and 
got a large amount of publicity, wffiich 
would have cost a great deal if it had 
been paid for as political advertise¬ 
ments. The other candidates spent 
about $3,000 each. The governor 
seeking renomination and uncontested, 
reported having spent $110.18, while 
the Secretary of State seeking renomi¬ 
nation, but contested, spent $1,511.04. 
In many instances candidates foY 
nomination to local offices or that of 
state senator or representative report 
no expenditures at all of less than $25. 
Contests, of course, invite large ex¬ 
penditures, but that was also true under 
the caucus and convention system. 

The Character of Candidates 

The question whether the primary 
keeps the best men out of office be¬ 
cause they are unwilling or unable 
financially to enter a primary cam¬ 
paign; or whether the candidates 
nominated by the primary are no 
worse than those chosen under the 
convention system, are questions upon 
which it is difficult to get trustworthy 
data. The people have made serious 


The Workings or the Direct Primary in Iowa 


153 


mistakes at times in selecting candi¬ 
dates by the primary system; nor did the 
convention system pick all good men. 

Effect of the Primary Upon Party 
Organization 

There is much evidence going to 
show that the primary has not been a 
menace to party organization. In¬ 
deed, party organization really con¬ 
trols the primary election to a con¬ 
siderable extent. In theory, anyone 
is free to circulate his own petition 
and contest any nomination; but in 
practice, it is usually futile to oppose 
the organization slate unless public 
sentiment is aroused, as was the case 
in the senatorial primary of 1922. 
The failure of the organization to 
control at all times is one of the chief 
causes for the demand for the repeal 
of the law by it. 

Iowa is essentially a one-party state 
and a glance at the table on p. 150 
suggests that it is no mere accident 
that the Democrats in Iowa have had 
no primary contests for state offices 
since 1914. The party organization 
makes up the slate of those who are 
to represent the party in the primary 
and where there are no contests it is a 
foregone conclusion that those persons 
will also represent the party in the 
general election. In 1920, the writer 
succeeded in getting primary ballots 
from sixty-eight of the ninety-nine 
counties of the state. These ballots 
showed that the Democrats had no 
candidate in the primary for more than 
50 per cent of the county offices, while 
for 50 per cent of the county offices only 
one candidate appeared in the Re¬ 
publican primaries. On the other 
hand, the Republicans were without 
any primary candidate for fifty-one 
county offices in the sixty-eight coun¬ 
ties, and the Democrats were without 
any for two hundred and eighty-four 
offices. The figures for the Republican 


Party, however, do not appear so bad 
when it is said that the office of coroner 
appeared thirty times of the fifty-one 
offices without primary candidates. 
This office is without salary and few 
fees in the majority of the counties 
of Iowa, and consequently sought 
only in the more populous counties. 

There were three hundred and 
seventy offices out of five hundred and 
forty-four with only one candidate, 
or no candidate in the Republican 
county primaries and five hundred and 
seventeen in the Democratic primaries 
in the sixty-eight counties referred 
to above. 

Thus it is apparent that in the 
primaries of the year 1920, most of the 
county offices, even in the majority 
party primaries, were uncontested, 
indicating either that the party or¬ 
ganization had fair control of the 
situation or that there was general 
lack of interest in public offices. In¬ 
stances have come to the attention 
of the writer where the two-party 
organizations, in counties where the 
parties are nearly equal, have divided 
up the offices—each organization agree¬ 
ing not to put in nomination any one 
for certain offices, thus assuring the 
election of the bi-partisan slate. 

Irregularity of Party Voting at 
the Primary 

The Iowa primary is a closed pri¬ 
mary; as indicated above the voter 
must make a declaration of party 
affiliation and he receives a party 
ballot. But why is the Democratic 
vote so small? Why is the percentage 
of Democrats voting in the primary 
so much smaller than that of the 
Republicans? On the average the 
Democrats cast only about 30 per 
cent of their general election vote in 
the primary. Are the Democrats par¬ 
ticipating in the Republican primaries 
and helping to name the Republican 



154 


The Annals of the American Academy 


candidates? This is the charge that 
the opponents of the primary are 
constantly making. It is probably 
true that others than Republicans 
participate in Republican primaries. 
The Democrats, being the minority 
party, having fixed their slate in 
advance of the primary, and having 
no contests for state offices, have little 
incentive to bring their party voters 
to the polls. The Socialist, Farmer- 
Laborer, and Socialist-Labor Parties 
combined, cast a little more than 
twenty-eight thousand votes for presi¬ 
dential electors in Iowa in 1920, while 
only the Socialist Party offered candi¬ 
dates in the primaries of the same year 
and their maximum vote cast in that 
primary was seven hundred and ninety- 
one. It is altogether likely that some 
of these, attracted by the occasional 
lively contests in the Republican 
primaries, have participated therein. 
But the fact that the percentage of 
the general election vote cast by the 
Democrats in their own primaries has 
remained fairly constant throughout 
the entire period in which the primary 
has been in operation, convinces the 
writer that the Democrats do not 
make a general practice of entering 
Republican primaries. 

In the Republican primary of 1922, 
the six candidates for the nomination 
of United States senator received a 
total of 323,650 votes, while the head 
of the state ticket received but 286,- 
518. It is therefore evident that some 
thirty-seven thousand voters entered 
the Republican primaries and ex¬ 
pressed a choice on United States 
senator and nothing else. It has been 
too generally assumed that these 
thirty-seven thousand votes were not 
Republicans. In this the writer can¬ 
not concur, because the total primary 
vote for senator was 61 per cent of the 
vote cast for Senator Cummins in 
1920 and 63 per cent of the vote cast 


for Governor Kendall in the same 
election. The office of governor has 
on the average polled about 70 per 
cent of the party vote, while the other 
state offices have averaged from 61 
to 65 per cent. Governor Kendall 
being unopposed in 1922 and the 
center of political interest being in the 
contest for the senatorship, he fell 
far below the average percentage of the 
party vote which the head of the state 
ticket usually gets — receiving only 
55 per cent of his general election vote 
of 1920. These facts convince the 
writer that the Republican primaries 
of 1922 were not overrun with out¬ 
siders. 

Nomination by Convention 

Does the primary accomplish its 
purpose as a popular nominating 
system? Only three times out of 
eight have all the nominations been 
made at the primary; that is, the suc¬ 
cessful candidates received 35 per cent 
of the vote cast for the office sought. 
But never before 1920 was there more 
than one state office at any one primary 
which failed to get the requisite vote. 
In 1920, however, the primary failed 
to determine the nomination of five 
out of seven offices. Every nomina¬ 
tion for which there were more than 
two candidates went to the state 
convention. The primary law leaves 
the convention free to make a nomina¬ 
tion wholly outside of the contestants 
in the primary, but as a matter of 
practice, this has never been done. 
Nor have the state conventions adopted 
the policy of selecting the high man 
in the primaries; on the contrary, 
in five times out of eight they have not 
done so. 

Republican Opposition to the 
Primary 

Most of those who originally opposed 
the adoption of the primary law in 


The Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa 


155 


Iowa are still opposed. Their news¬ 
papers welcome every attack upon the 
primary and continually demand its 
repeal or suggest such amendments as 
would practically nullify it. In the 
past two years the attacks upon the 
primary system in Iowa have been 
more vigorous than ever before. 

The Republican State Convention 
in 1920 declared that, 

Actual experience has demonstrated that 
great evils have arisen in the use of the 
present primary law of this state. It has 
been given a fair trial and found to be 
unwieldy, expensive, and unsatisfactory. 
We favor its repeal and the substitution 
therefor of such primary legislation as 
will guarantee to all voters the full right 
to take part and be heard in the councils 
of their party, and will provide for them 
an opportunity for free and fair expression 
as to both candidates and measures. 

In the General Assembly of 1921 the 
Republican Party had almost complete 
control; out of fifty senators, forty- 
eight were Republicans and of a 
hundred and eight members of the 
lower house, one hundred and one 
belonged to the Republican Party. 
Yet the Assembly adjourned without 
having touched the primary law. 

The Republican State Convention in 
1922 declared that it “emphatically” 
reaffirmed the declaration of 1920 
respecting the primary law and added: 

In the event, however, that the General 
Assembly shall not comply with this demand 
for a substantial revision of our nominating 
system, then we instruct the Republican 
State Committee in calling the state con¬ 
vention for electing delegates to the next 
Republican national convention, to call 
such state convention for a date not later 
than February, 1924, and to include in the 
call therefor, as a part of the business of 
that convention, the duty of indorsing 
candidates for senator, governor, and other 
state officers to be supported by the party 
as a party in the ensuing primaries; and 
the state committee shall at the same time 


prescribe suitable rules for a fair and free 
choice of delegates to such state convention 
under republican auspices and by republi¬ 
cans only. 

At the present writing no one seri¬ 
ously believes that the legislature of 
1923 will materially change the pri¬ 
mary law. 

The reason for this difference be¬ 
tween party declaration and legislative 
action is easily told. The primary 
law sought to preserve the party 
organization and make it subject to 
popular will. It therefore provided 
for both county and state conventions 
to be assembled subsequent to the 
primaries, for the purpose of naming 
candidates where no one received the 
requisite 35 per cent or where vacancies 
occurred, and for the purpose of 
drafting a platform of party principles. 
For the selection of delegates to the 
county convention the law provides 
that, “The requisite number of names 
of candidates of his choice for delegates 
to the county convention to which 
each precinct is entitled, shall be 
written or pasted with uniform white 
pasters on the blank lines upon the 
ballot by the voter while in the booth.” 
Also, “One member of the county 
central committee for each political 
party from each precinct shall be 
elected.” 

In practice very few voters find 
themselves able, on the spur of the 
moment, to write out a list of from ten 
to twenty names of persons whom 
they know to be residents of the pre¬ 
cinct and members of the party des¬ 
ignated. The result is that the party 
organization or some of its members 
distribute lists of delegates and candi¬ 
dates for party committeemen printed 
on gummed paper, in practically 
every voting precinct. The voter 
obediently licks this gummed slip 
of hand-picked delegates and pastes it 
oh the proper place on the ballot, 


156 


The Annals of the American Academy 


without knowing who they are or for 
what they stand. The delegates thus 
chosen in the several voting precinct 
make up the county convention, and 
the county convention in turn chooses 
the delegates to the state convention. 
Thus the party organization perpetu¬ 
ates itself and may often be altogether 
out of accord with the mass of the 
party voters. 

The voters seem to show an interest 
in candidates for office, especially if 
there are contests; but seem to fail 
to realize that in case the primary 
fails to nominate a candidate, the 
selection will fall to a group of dele¬ 
gates picked by a mere handful of men. 

The declaration in the Republican 
state platform demanding a repeal 
of the primary does not, as far as the 
observation of the writer goes, repre¬ 
sent the popular sentiment in Iowa. 
Outside of the so-called ‘‘old guard,” 
one hears more demands for open or 
non-partisan primaries than for repeal. 
The Democrats, though a minority 
party, have declared strongly in their 
last tw'O platforms in favor of the pri¬ 
mary. The progressive wing of the 
Republicans favors it and the League 
of Women Voters has recently expressed 
its disapproval of any attempts to 
repeal the primary system in this state. 

Proposed Changes in the Iowa 
Primary Law 

It would be as hard to find a sub¬ 
stitute for the primary election as it is 
to find a substitute for the jury system. 
Both have their faults, and both can 
be improved. 

The time of holding primary elec¬ 
tions in Iowa is unfortunate. The 
first Monday in June is one of the 
hardest times of year for a farmer to 
leave his work and consequently the 
rural vote is usually small. Again, 
the interval between the primary and 
the election is altogether too long. 


The issues of the primary are either 
forgotten by November or the people 
are weary of a long drawn-out cam¬ 
paign. The early part of September 
would be the best time for holding 
a primary in Iowa. 

Some of those who talk primary elec¬ 
tion reform in Iowa advocate the short 
primary ballot; by which they mean 
permitting the voters to nominate 
candidates for United States senators, 
congressmen, governor, lieutenant 
governor and local officers, the candi¬ 
dates for the rest of the state offices to 
be nominated by the state convention. 
It is doubtful if such a proposal would 
receive much popular endorsement. 

Both the advocates and the op¬ 
ponents of the primary system seem 
to be agreed that the 35 per cent rule 
should be changed. The first group 
would adopt the so-called “high man” 
rule, while the latter insist upon 
majority nominations. Majority nom¬ 
inations being difficult to obtain when 
more than two candidates are in the 
field, it would be necessary to have a 
second primary or throw the nomina¬ 
tion to a convention. 

Opponents of the present law want 
to make the test of party affiliation 
more rigid. They advocate registra¬ 
tion for the primary, and would permit 
no change in party affiliation to be 
made, unless made anywhere from 
thirty days to six months before the 
primaries. The woman voter has 
made such a proposition impossible. 
As far as the writer is informed, the 
women of Iowa are more interested 
in open or non-partisan primaries than 
in more rigid tests of party affiliation. 

A provision limiting by law the 
amount of money which one may be 
permitted to spend in a primary' con¬ 
test, would be wholesome and would 
no doubt overcome much criticism 
now directed against primary election 
expenditures. 


The Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa 


4 


157 


Probably one of the most unsatis¬ 
factory features of the Iowa primary 
law is the unrepresentative character 
of the conventions called by its au¬ 
thority. The inability of the average 
voter to name lists of delegates to the 
county convention or to pass judgment 
on the lists submitted to him by the 
party organization on primary day, 
has been mentioned above. If the 
convention is to be retained, the dele¬ 
gates should be named in advance of 
the primary in order that the voter may 
have an opportunity to know who they 
are; but of course if the “high man” 
rule were adopted, the convention 
would be shorn of all power except 
filling vacancies and drawing up the 
party platform. 

The so-called Hughes plan is largely 
condemned because it has been ad¬ 
vocated in Iowa by those who have 
been hostile to the primary system. 
The suspicion grows that the reac¬ 
tionaries would like nothing better 
than the ability to name all candidates 
in a convention and give them first 
place on the ballot bearing the par¬ 
ty endorsement. Popular candidates 
without an organization endorsement 
would appear as “scabs” and irreg¬ 
ular and would have difficulty making 


much headway against such odds as 
these. 

Conclusion 

It is the writer’s belief that we should 
proceed slowly in making any changes 
which will reduce the power of the 
voter, especially so in as much as the 
electorate has been doubled by the 
adoption of the nineteenth amendment. 
The women of Iowa should be given 
ample opportunity to become familiar 
with the workings of the primary 
system before radical changes are 
made. The fact that a particular 
candidate nominated at the primary 
is not acceptable to the organization 
leaders is no reason for overthrowing 
the system by which he was nominated. 
Moreover, too rigid a test of party 
affiliation is more apt to keep the 
honest and conscientious from the 
polls than the venal and corrupt; 
thus reducing the percentage of those 
who participate in the primary. In 
such a case we w r ould probably witness 
worse abuses than those now com¬ 
plained of. 

Perhaps we would have more con¬ 
fidence in the demands for the repeal 
of the primary system if they did not 
come so consistently from those who 
have suffered disppointment under it. 


i 


4 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 

By Clarence A. Berdahl, Ph.D. 

Associate in Political Science, University of Illinois 


U ndoubtedly the most unique 

primary law on the statute books 
is that of South Dakota, known as the 
Richards primary. In the words of 
its author, “it differs from primary laws 
of other states in that it retains the 
representative convention system in 
proposal of party platform and can¬ 
didates; also differs in making prin¬ 
ciples, instead of persons, . . . the 
paramount issue; ... it provides a 
free proposal system to raise, join, dis¬ 
cuss and elect the paramount issue for 
party platform and nominations of 
candidates.” 1 

In an attempt to provide for a more 
effective expression of public opinion 
in the selection of a party’s candidates 
and issues, and to secure in general 
more responsible party government, 
the Richards law includes several 
features that are decidedly novel; 
the proposal of candidates and issues 
by representative conventions, the 
emphasis on the “paramount issue,” 
the scheme of public joint debates, 
the postmaster primary, the attempt 
to apply the merit system in appoint¬ 
ments and the party recall. 

The law has been denounced as 
freakish, 2 unworkable, unduly expen¬ 
sive, destructive of party organization 
and discipline, and productive of 
political turmoil. Since its first adop¬ 
tion through the initiative and refer¬ 
endum in 1912, it has been subjected 
to almost continuous assault by the 
state legislature and the party machine, 

1 Statement by R. O. Richards, in Sioux Falls 
Argus-Leader, Aug. 8, 1921. 

2 The precinct elections of the last primary 
campaign were referred to as “the first act of the 
Sunshine Follies of 1921-22.” 


but has received the sanction of popu¬ 
lar approval at the polls on four sepa¬ 
rate occasions. 3 It has now been in 
operation during three primary cam¬ 
paigns—those of 1913-1914, 1919- 
1920, and 1921-1922, 4 and it may 
therefore be in order to inquire into 
its working. 

Party Organization 

Party Membership .—Although the 
Richards primary is of the closed 
primary type, the test for party mem¬ 
bership “does not amount to a conti¬ 
nental as a restriction,” as was re¬ 
marked by one of the South Dakota 
newspapers. The test provided is 
that of present affiliation, a voter being 
merely required at the polls to declare 
his party allegiance “in a distinct and 
audible voice,” and, if challenged, 
to state under oath that he is “in good 
faith” a member of that party and a 
believer in its principles “as declared 
in the last preceding national and state 
platforms.” 

The Republican Party being the 
normally dominant party in South 
Dakota, there is regularly a lively 
contest for its nominations, and just as 
regularly comparative quiet within 
the other parties. In 1922, for ex¬ 
ample, Mr. Louis N. Crill and Miss 

3 In 1912, 1914, 1918, and 1920. In 1916 ttffe 
law failed by a small majority to secure popular 
approval. For a sketch of these events in the 
adoption of the law, as well as for a summary of 
its salient provisions, see an article by the writer 
on “The Richards Primary,” in Am. Pol. Sci. 
Rev., XIV, 93-105 (Feb., 1920). The law may be 
found in Session Laws of South Dakota, 1916- 
1917, Ch. 234; or in the Revised Political Code, 
1919, Sections 7097-7200. 

4 In amended form in the last case, however. 


158 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 


159 


Alice Lorraine Daly were unopposed 
for the Democratic and Nonpartisan 
League nominations respectively for 
governor. Within the Republican 
Party, however, there was a bitter con¬ 
test between Governor McMaster, 
representing the regular party organ¬ 
ization, and the picturesque George 
W. Egan, posing as the champion of 
the people against the machine. Con¬ 
sequently, there were frequent sug¬ 
gestions and even open appeals that 
Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers 
participate in the Republican prim¬ 
aries in order to “smash the machine.” 
Apparently an effort was made to 
interpret the loose provision noted 
above in such a way as to prevent this, 
the Attorney General (and at least 
one state’s attorney) issuing a state¬ 
ment in which he called special atten¬ 
tion to the penalties for illegal voting 
at the primary. 5 

In reply, it was pointed out that 
under the law “a voter who was a 
Democrat yesterday may legally be 
a Republican tomorrow. In reality 
there is no distinction between the 
parties save in name alone. A voter 
is neither a poor citizen nor a poor 
sport who chances to change from the 
Democratic primaries to the Republi¬ 
can primaries, because in his belief 
he can perform better the obligations 
he owes the state.” 6 One of the lead¬ 
ing newspapers of the state likewise 
declared very bluntly that “any Re¬ 
publican, any former Democrat, any 
former Nonpartisan Leaguer may go 
into the primary election on March 
28 and demand a Republican ballot, 
vote that ballot and have it counted. 
If the right of an applicant to vote the 
Republican ticket is challenged, with 

6 See statement of Attorney General Byron S. 
Payne, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 23, 1922. 

6 Letter of Attorney Thos. H. Kirby to the 
state’s attorney of Minnehaha County, in Sioux 
Falls Press , Mar. 19, 1922. 


a view of intimidating the voter, it is 
only necessary for the challenged 
person to declare himself or herself 
a Republican. The desire and inten¬ 
tion to vote the Republican ticket at 
that particular time makes the voter 
a bona fide Republican. There is no 
other test that need concern the con¬ 
science of the voter. There is no other 
clean-cut division between the parties 
except that demonstrated in the bal¬ 
loting.” 7 

In the following primary of March 
28, 1922, the Republican vote for 
governor. in Minnehaha County, the 
most populous county in South Da¬ 
kota, reached a total of 13,435, as 
against a Democratic and Nonpartisan 
League vote of 83 and 17, respectively. 
In the November election, on the 
other hand, the Republican vote in the 
same county fell to 5,118, while the 
Democratic vote increased to 4,208, 
and the Nonpartisan League vote to 
3,028. Similarly, the Republican vote 
in the state at large fell from 101,758 
in the March primary to about 78,000 
in the November election, with corre¬ 
sponding increases for the Democrats 
and Nonpartisan Leaguers. 8 These 
figures seem to demonstrate that 
Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers 
in South Dakota probably do like 
to invade the Republican primaries 
on occasion, and that such invasion 
cannot be prevented (if, indeed, it 
be desirable to prevent it) by the test 
of party allegiance imposed by the 
Richards law. 

In this respect, however, the charge 
that party organization and discipline 
are practically destroyed is no more 
valid against the Richards plan than 
against any other primary law with a 
loose provision of that sort. It is 
possible, of course, that other features 

7 Sioux Falls Press, Feb. 8, 1922. 

8 These are the unofficial figures, obtained 
from newspaper reports. 


160 


The Annals of the American Academy 


of the Richards law may encourage 
independence to such a degree that 
the political conscience of the voter 
becomes more elastic, and that the 
bonds of the party organization there¬ 
fore rest more lightly upon him. 

Party Committees .—Party com¬ 
mittees under the Richards law are 
constituted in quite orthodox fashion. 
There is a county central committee 
for each county made up of one com¬ 
mitteeman chosen by the party voters 
in each, precinct, and a state central 
committee similarly composed of one 
committeeman elected from each 
county. The county chairman is 
chosen by the members of the county 
committee and the party nominees for 
county and legislative offices, while the 
state chairman and the national com¬ 
mitteeman are elected at the state¬ 
wide primary. 

All party committees are, however, 
constituted on the basis of “unit 
representation”; that is, each com¬ 
mitteeman casts a vote at all committee 
meetings equal to the number of votes 
cast at the last general election within 
the territory he represents (precinct 
or county) for his party’s candidate 
for governor. Thus, although the 
64 counties of the state are each repre¬ 
sented on the state central committee 
of each party by one committeeman, 
their strength and influence will vary 
according to the party strength. The 
Republican state committeeman for 
Minnehaha County, for example, had 
a voting strength of about one-tenth 
of the committee before the last gen¬ 
eral election, whereas now his relative 
strength is only about one-thirteenth. 
The Democratic committeeman for 
the same county, with an actual 
smaller number of votes (4,208 to 

9 The writer is of course aware that the prin¬ 
ciple of unit representation is applied in the 
primary laws of some other states, notably 

Illinois. 


5,118), has a strength equal to ap¬ 
proximately one-tenth of his com¬ 
mittee. 9 

One other point in connection with 
the selection of party officials and 
committees may be worthy of mention 
in explaining the operation of the 
Richards law. The law provides that 
an unopposed candidate for a nomina¬ 
tion shall be certified as the nominee 
of his party without having his name 
printed on the primary ballot; but 
candidates for elective positions within 
the party (that is, for party chairman 
and committeeman) must have their 
names printed on the ballot, whether 
unopposed or not. 10 In other words, 
the law makes possible a short ballot 
by eliminating most of the uncontested 
places; but, on the other hand, it is 
not possible for any party to avoid 
altogether the necessity of conducting 
a primary election. It happened in 
several counties last spring that the 
primary ballot (particularly that of 
the minority parties) contained only 
two names, those of unopposed candi¬ 
dates for the positions of state com¬ 
mitteeman and state chairman. 

Proposal Conventions 

For the selection of candidates and 
issues, the Richards law provides a 
very elaborate and somewhat com¬ 
plicated machinery. In two of the 
steps involved in the complete proc¬ 
ess (the precinct initiatory elections 
held in November of every odd-num¬ 
bered year, and the state-wide primary 
in March of every even-numbered 
year) the voter participates directly. 
But especially important are the 
representative conventions held by 
each party in both county and state, 
for the purpose of proposing candidates 

10 See Sections 7111-7113, 7132-7133 of the 
Richards law (Revised Political Code, 1919), and 
opinion thereon by Assistant Attorney General 
V. R. Sickle, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 12, 1922. 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 


and issues, from which final selection 
is made at the following primary. 
The county proposal conventions for 
each party are made up of three pro- 
posalmen elected by the respective 
party voters in each precinct under a 
regulated caucus system, the so-called 
precinct initiatory election; while the 
state proposal conventions are similarly 
composed of three proposalmen from 
each county, but chosen for each party 
by the respective county conventions. 
Both county and state conventions 
are, like the party committees, based 
on the idea of “unit representation,” 
in that each proposalman has a vote 
equal to one-third the number of 
votes cast at the last general election 
in his precinct or county for his party’s 
candidate for governor. The details 
as to time of meeting, organization, and 
procedure of all these proposal con¬ 
ventions are carefully regulated in the 
law. 11 

Majority and Minority Proposals .— 
The plan of an initial proposal of 
candidates by pre-primary conventions 
is in accord with the growing desire 
to attach more official responsibility 
to the party organization, and has been 

11 For example, all proposal conventions, 
county or state, are required to convene at 11 
o’clock a.m. on the designated day. The Revised 
Code of South Dakota, however, further declares 
in what portions of the state such statutory 
designations of time shall be understood to mean 
central or mountain time, in accordance with 
which provision any legislative designation of 
time would mean mountain time in the city of 
Murdo in Jones County, although the business of 
the city is conducted according to central time. 
As a result of this confusion, one faction of 
Republican proposalmen of that county met at 11 
o’clock, and another faction at 12 o’clock, each 
electing a separate group of state proposalmen. 
The writer is not aware how the contest was 
settled, although the law seems to favor the 
second group; but the incident illustrates the 
difficulty of attempting to regulate such minor 
details by statute. It would seem that the hour 
of meeting and other details might well be left to 
the party committee or other authority. 

12 


161 

adopted to some extent by other states, 
notably Minnesota. The Richards 
plan is decidedly novel, however, in 
that it expressly recognizes the ex¬ 
istence of opposing factions within a 
party and provides for an official slate 
of candidates to be proposed by both 
the majority and minority factions. 

The majority in a proposal conven¬ 
tion first selects its candidates and 
principles. Thereupon the minority, 
if dissatisfied and if composed of at 
least five proposalmen, is permitted 
to “protest” by selecting and filing 
its own slate. Both the majority 
and minority (or protesting) slates are 
given a place on the primary ballot, 
but without any distinction as to name, 
both being called merely representative 
proposals. It is possible for the voter 
to distinguish these on the ballot, 
however, since the majority proposals 
must be placed in the last column of 
the ballot, and the minority proposals 
in the column next to the last. It may 
be noted also that only two official 
factions are recognized, the law pro¬ 
viding that in case there is more than 
one group of protesting proposals, 
those first filed shall be placed on the 
ballot. 

Thus, in the Republican State 
Proposal Convention of December, 
1919, General Wood received 28,599 
votes to 15,442 for Governor Lowden, 
and thereupon became the “majority” 
candidate for the presidential nomina¬ 
tion. Governor Lowden was promptly 
named as the minority or “protesting” 
candidate, and as such contested with 
General Wood for the support of the 
South Dakota Republicans. Simi¬ 
larly, the Democrats selected President 
Wilson and former Ambassador Gerard 
as the majority and minority candidates 
of their party. 12 

12 It should be remarked that Mr. Gerard 
announced that his “protesting” candidacy was 
filed only in case President Wilson should decline. 


162 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Independent Proposals. —In addition 
to the two “representative” slates 
that may be put forward by the of¬ 
ficially recognized factions in the 
proposal conventions, the Richards 
law permits the proposal of an un¬ 
limited number of independent candi¬ 
dates for any office by the usual proc¬ 
ess of a petition with a required 
number of signatures. In fact, such 
independent candidates are definitely 
encouraged in that they are given the 
first column on the ballot, generally 
conceded to be the choice position, 
and are given prior consideration in 
other respects, in order, as is stated 
in the law, “to encourage leadership.” 

The Richards law goes so far in its 
attempt to encourage such independent 
leadership within a party, as to provide 
that any independent candidate for 
the nomination for President or gov¬ 
ernor who received as much as 10 
per cent of the total party vote at the 
primary election, shall be recognized 
as a “leader.” The language further 
seems to require that the protesting or 
minority proposalmen shall select this 
“leader” as their candidate at the next 
election, if he desires to continue his 
fight for his “paramount issue.” 13 
This peculiar provision applied in the 
last campaign to Mr. Richards him¬ 
self, the author of the law, since he had 
been such an independent candidate 
for the gubernatorial nomination in 
1920. It was generally expected that 
Mr. Richards would insist on his 
right to “leadership,” whether the 
proposalmen would have him or no, but 

Although the President's withdrawal left Mr. 
Gerard as the sole candidate proposed by the 
Democratic convention, his name necessarily 
appeared in the third or “protesting” column. 

For a full report of these proposal conventions, 
see the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader or Sioux Falls 
Press, under date of Dec. 3, 1919; and the same 
papers, under date of Dec. 7, 1921, for reports of 
the latest of these conventions. 

13 Section 7098, Rev. Pol. Code, 1919. 


at the last moment he withdrew his 
claims, and as a consequence there was 
no minority candidate for that office 
in 1922. Presumably Mr. Richards' 
legal claim will have expired by the 
time of the next primary campaign, 
although the law is not clear on that 
point. 

Good use has been made of the pro¬ 
vision for independent candidacies. 
Senators Johnson and Poindexter were 
able in this way to submit their presi¬ 
dential ambitions to the people of 
South Dakota in 1920, although neither 
received any consideration from the 
state proposal convention. So also 
Mr. Richards himself, decidedly per¬ 
sona non grata to the Republican 
organization, was enabled in the same 
year to become a candidate for the 
gubernatorial nomination, and in that 
way secure a hearing for more of his 
ideas. The campaign of Mr. Egan in 
1922, already mentioned, was also 
conducted as an independent candi¬ 
date. 

In other words, the method of 
proposing candidates by an official 
convention does not by any means pre¬ 
clude other candidates v r ho may not 
stand in well w r ith the “organization,” 
nor does it necessarily mean that the 
slate or program is going to be a cut 
and dried affair. The system does, 
however, throw a certain responsibility 
upon the party organization; it is 
required to show its hand, so that the 
voters at least know which are “organ¬ 
ization" candidates and which are 
not. 

The plan of the Richards law with 
regard to the selection of candidates 
is thus much like the plan of Governor 
Hughes in New T York. It is different 
in that the official slates are proposed 
by representative conventions instead 
of by the party committees, thus 
providing greater opportunity for the 
voters themselves to determine the 



The Operation of the Richards Primary 


163 


selections. It differs also in that the 
Hughes plan gave the official slate 
the preferred place on the primary 
ballot, whereas the Richards law favors 
the independent candidates in that 
way. Finally, it differs from the 
Hughes plan and from any other plan 
in its distinct recognition of factions 
within a partv. 

It is this provision, perhaps more 
than any other, that is criticized by 
politicians and organization men. It is 
said that this prevents party harmony, 
promotes factional differences, and 
keeps the state in continuous political 
turmoil. To a certain extent those 
criticisms are no doubt well founded, 
but it seems to the writer that the law 
is simply a recognition of an obvious 
fact, perhaps especially obvious in 
South Dakota, where the Republican 
party has been split into two well- 
defined groups—stalwart and pro¬ 
gressive—for at least the last twenty 
years. The Richards law does not 
require factional proposals, it merely 
permits them; but it does offer an 
opportunity for dissatisfaction, where 
such exists, to assert itself in an organ¬ 
ized manner. The voter’s task of 
ultimate approval or disapproval of 
the party’s program and candidates 
is thus simplified to a degree. 

Declaration of Acceptance .—In con¬ 
nection with the process of selection, 
it may also be noted that all candidates, 
whether proposed by representative 
conventions or by individual petition, 
must sign a declaration of intention 
to accept the nomination and the office, 
to adhere to the party principles, 
and to obey the party recall if invoked. 
Failure to do this, as well as failure to 
comply with any other provision of 
the law, operates to bar or to remove 
the candidate’s name from the primary 
ballot. 

This provision had the effect, during 
the last presidential campaign, of 


forcing certain gentlemen to declare 
themselves definitely as seeking the 
office, when they would otherwise have 
preferred to play the part of the coy 
maiden or the dark horse. General 
Wood hesitated for some time after 
he had been proposed by the Republi¬ 
can “majority” in South Dakota, and 
would clearly have preferred withhold¬ 
ing any definite announcement of his 
candidacy at that early date (Decem¬ 
ber, 1919). However, in order not to 
forfeit the ten delegates from South 
Dakota, he finally signed the required 
declaration, in spite of an opinion from 
the attorney-general of the state that 
the pledge could not be applied to 
constitutional offices. 14 Governor Low- 
den and Ambassador Gerard, as the 
“protesting” candidates of the two 
parties, willingly signed the declaration, 
as did also Senator Johnson and Sena¬ 
tor Poindexter as independent candi¬ 
dates. President Wilson and Gov¬ 
ernor Frazier, the latter proposed 
for President by the Nonpartisan 
League, did not file acceptances, and 
hence their names did not appear on 
the primary ballot; while Governor 
Coolidge, proposed by the majority 
Republicans for Vice-President, for¬ 
mally withdrew his name for that office, 
he being then a candidate for the 
presidency. 

Platform and Paramount Issue 

The Richards law is notable for 
the special emphasis placed on princi¬ 
ples and issiles, rather than on persons. 
No “representative" slates, whether 
of the majority or minority, may run 
without a platform and declaration 
of principles, and even independent 
candidates for President or governor 
are required to file such a statement 
of principles. The procedure for the 
proposal and selection of such party 
platforms is the same as that for the 

14 See Sioux Falls Argus-Leader , Dec. 16, 1919. 



164 


The Annals of the American Academy 


proposal and selection of candidates. 
The various planks are presented 
in the proposal conventions, discussed, 
voted upon one at a time, and the 
platform thus adopted becomes the 
platform proposed for the party by 
the majority faction. If dissatisfied, the 
minority may “protest” as in the 
case of candidates, by filing its dec¬ 
laration of principles together with its 
slate of candidates, and if there is still 
dissatisfaction, there may be independ¬ 
ent proposals. 

In order that the voter may base 
his ultimate selection of party candi¬ 
dates at the primary upon principles, 
each group (except the independents) 
must select from the proposed dec¬ 
laration of principles or platform what 
it considers the “paramount issue,” 
required by the law to be “a well- 
defined and definite principle for a 
public policy.” This paramount issue 
must then be summarized in not more 
than eight words, and is printed at the 
head of the appropriate column on 
the primary ballot. It is also required 
that there be one such summary or 
paramount issue for national, state, 
and county purposes. 

In accordance w ith these novel pro¬ 
visions, the South Dakota Republi¬ 
cans, by endorsing General Wood and 
the “majority” slate in 1920, approved 
as the national paramount issue “Pa¬ 
triotism, Progress, Prosperity, Honesty, 
Economy, Law and Order,” which in¬ 
deed seemed to that group so impres¬ 
sive that it was repeated on the ba’lot 
without change as the paramount 
issue for state and county as well. 15 
Had the Republicans preferred Gov¬ 
ernor Lowden, they w 7 ould have com¬ 
mitted themselves to the issue of 
“Economy, Efficiency, Protection, 
Peace, Agriculture promoted, One 
Flag.” Although Senator Johnson’s 
paramount issue was not printed on 

15 This was the case in Minnehaha County. 


the ballot, he being an independent 
candidate and not the candidate of a 
“representative” faction, it was de¬ 
clared to be “American Freedom 
of Speech and of the Press, and Justice 
with Law and Order.” Surely here 
was a real opportunity for the Re¬ 
publican voter to exercise his dis¬ 
criminating judgment! 

The Democratic “majority,” evi¬ 
dently thoroughly tainted wfith Wilson- 
ism, endorsed President Wilson on the 
paramount issue of “For a Lasting 
Peace under the League of Nations”; 
but recognizing that the League w 7 as 
hardly a state issue, proposed for that 
purpose “A Business Administration 
for South Dakota.” Ambassador Ger¬ 
ard, although the “protesting” candi¬ 
date, showed his readiness to go Wilson 
one better by basing his campaign on 
the issue of “Make and Keep the 
World Safe for Democracy,” which for 
state purposes w r as reduced to “True 
Democracy.” 

In the campaign of 1922, all the 
parties appeared to be in practical 
agreement, to judge from the para¬ 
mount issue of each, all emphasizing 
somehow the idea of economy and 
reduction of taxes. The Republicans 
declared for “Equitable Adjustment, 
Economy, Progress and Prosperity,” 
the Democrats for “Efficiency, Econ¬ 
omy and Reduction of Taxes,” while 
the Nonpartisan Leaguers show ed their 
radicalism by standing boldly for 
“Sweeping Reduction of Taxation.” 

All of this sounds more or less ab¬ 
surd. In fact, it is quite possible that a 
strict interpretation of the Richards 
law itself would make this sort of thing 
actually illegal. Mr. Richards has 
been reported as objecting, both in 1919 
and in 1921, to the paramount issue 
•adopted by the majority faction of his 
party as not “well-defined and defi¬ 
nite.” 16 It was suggested that the 

16 Sioux Falls Press , Dec. 25, 29, 1921. 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 


165 


candidates had not complied with the 
law in defining their issues so vaguely 
and indefinitely, and that their names 
might therefore be barred from the 
ballot. No action was taken on those 
occasions, but perhaps some day the 
Supreme Court of South Dakota will 
be called upon to determine whether 
or not an issue is well-defined and 
definite. 

Before denouncing all this as utterly 
absurd, one should bear in mind that 
the “paramount issue” does really 
serve a useful purpose in distinguishing 
and identifying the various slates 
on the ballot; and it is quite possible 
that it might, if taken seriously, serve 
reasonably well in summarizing for the 
voter the party’s declaration of princi¬ 
ples. The politicians have made of it 
merely a meaningless and well-sound¬ 
ing slogan, but not more absurdly so 
under the Richards plan than under 
any other method. It is quite true 
that the complete platforms adopted 
under the Richards plan contain the 
usual amount of “bunk”; still in the 
method there is opportunity provided 
for discussion and consideration, and 
any sharp conflicts of opinion are likely 
under this plan to be resolved by the 
voters at the primary instead of being 
carefully smoothed over by the leaders 
in the interests of party harmony. In 
other words, the South Dakota law rec¬ 
ognizes that the factional divisions with¬ 
in a party may be grounded in real 
differences of principle or policy; those 
candidates who wish the prestige of or¬ 
ganized endorsement by either faction 
are required to commit themselves ac¬ 
cordingly, and the task of the voter in 
making the ultimate selection is thus 
rendered somewhat simpler. If the 
issues are not sharply defined, there 
is still with the voter the power to 
discriminate between the candidates 
themselves as he may choose, 


Publicity 

The Richards plan is notable in its 
attempt to secure publicity in party 
affairs, foster public discussion of 
issues, and educate the voters so that 
there may be formed an intelligent 
public opinion. The provisions for 
these purposes are among the most in¬ 
teresting and novel features of the plan. 

Political Record Books .—The South 
Dakota law requires the Secretary 
of State and each county auditor to 
keep “political record books,” in 
which are to be recorded all transac¬ 
tions of the several political parties 
relating respectively to state and 
national, and to county and local 
affairs. These include the minutes 
of all party committee meetings and 
proposal conventions, the various party 
platforms, the proposal papers and 
declarations of all candidates, the 
challenges and acceptances to joint 
debate, and the party endorsements for 
appointive positions. If carefully kept 
and preserved, these books should 
afford a constant check on secret 
political deals, as well as furnish a 
perfect mine of reliable information 
for the future historian and student of 
party politics. 

As a matter of fact, the various 
officials charged with the duty either 
of reporting or keeping these records 
seem not to have taken their duties 
in these respects very seriously. It is 
reported that the minutes of the last 
Republican state proposal meeting were 
not filed as required by law; and Mr. 
Richards, himself a member of the 
state committee, has charged that the 
Republican state chairman called a 
“snap” meeting of that committee 
for May 16, 1922, and failed to file 
a record of that meeting with the 
Secretary of State. 17 An examination 

17 Sioux Falls Press t Dec. 29, 1921; Nov- 5, 
1922- 


166 


The Annals of the American Academy 


of the political record book kept in 
one county (Minnehaha) revealed that 
the only party transactions there 
recorded were the minutes of the 
county proposal meetings; the officials 
did not seem to appreciate that the 
transactions of the party committees 
should have been recorded, as well 
as other party transactions of the sort 
indicated. The writer submits that 
this provision of the Richards law is 
among its most valuable features, 
and pressure should be brought to 
secure its careful observance. 

Party Publicity Pamphlet .—The pub¬ 
licity pamphlet is now a fairly common 
device, but the South Dakota law is 
the first to provide such a pamphlet 
for the purposes of the primary cam¬ 
paign within each party as well as for 
the general election campaign between 
the parties. Space was provided for 
the biography, half tone cut, principles, 
and arguments of any or all candidates 
proposed independently or by conven¬ 
tion within each party, with all the 
details as to the amount of space, 
arrangement of the material and kind 
of type, carefully regulated by the 
law. A copy of the pamphlet was 
mailed to every voter forty days 
before the date of the primary, the 
expense of mailing being borne by 
each county, that of publication by 
the state. 

This was a step in advance of other 
provisions for state payment of party 
expenses, in that it legalized and pro¬ 
vided for the factional and personal 
campaigns within each party for the 
nominations of that party; whereas the 
most that any state had done before 
was to provide in some measure for 
necessary expenses in seeking the office 
itself. Presumably because of the ex¬ 
pense, this feature of the Richards law 
was repealed by the legislature of 1921, 
and is therefore no longer in effect. 18 

18 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 333. 


Public Joint Debate .—Perhaps the 
most novel feature of the Richards pri¬ 
mary (also now repealed), was the pro¬ 
vision for a series of public joint debates 
between the candidates for President 
and between those for governor. The 
law required that before the primary 
there be held within each party at least 
one such debate between the presiden¬ 
tial candidates, and at least sixteen 

si 

debates between the candidates for 
governor. It also required a similar 
series of twelve debates to be held after 
the primary between the nominees of 
the two largest parties for governor. 
Presidential candidates might debate 
by proxy, but gubernatorial candidates 
were required to be present and to 
debate in person. 

The debates were in every case re¬ 
quired to be discussions of each can¬ 
didate’s paramount issue, with express 
provision that “no personalities or 
personal imputations may be brought 
into the debate under any circum¬ 
stances.” A definite system of chal¬ 
lenges and acceptances was provided 
for and enforced by the simple provi¬ 
sion that failure on the part of a 
candidate to make or accept a chal¬ 
lenge, when required, or a failure to fill 
the debate, operated as a withdrawal 
of that candidate’s name from the pri¬ 
mary or election ballot, whichever the 
case might be. There were also de¬ 
tailed regulations for the conduct of 
these debates, prescribing the time and 
place of meeting, the selection of a 
presiding officer, the time and order of 
speaking, and the rules of procedure. 

In accordance with these provisions, 
public joint debates were held in South 
Dakota during the campaign of 1920. 
Senator Poindexter, as an independent 
candidate for the Republican presi¬ 
dential nomination, challenged Gen¬ 
eral Wood, the “majority” candidate. 
General Wood accepted the challenge, 
as he was required to do, and appeared 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 


167 


personally instead of by proxy. The 
debate was held at Pierre, the state 
capital, on March 20, over General 
Wood’s paramount issue, reduced for 
the purposes of the campaign to 
“Americanism.” A tremendous crowd 
was in attendance, a judge of the state 
Supreme Court presided, and altogether 
the event was notable in the political 
history of the state. 19 Similarly a 
joint debate was staged at Sioux Falls 
between Ambassador Gerard and one 
James O. Monroe, the rival candidates 
for the Democratic delegates from 
South Dakota. The provisions of the 
law with regard to the gubernatorial 
debates were also scrupulously adhered 
to, and a particularly vigorous series of 
debates was held between Mr. Rich¬ 
ards, the author of the law, and Mr. 
McMaster, the present governor. 

It could not be claimed that these 
debates held under the Richards pri¬ 
mary were like unto the more famous 
Lincoln-Douglas debates; it may well 
be supposed, as indeed the records 
show, that the discussions of the “para¬ 
mount issue” were frequently inane 
and beside the point; it may even seem 
that the state was on occasion “putting 
on a burlesque show,” as was said by a 
country newspaper. On the other 
hand, the discussions thus instituted 
aroused interest on the part of the vo¬ 
ters, brought the presidential candi¬ 
dates of all parties into the state to be 
seen and heard, attracted attention 
even outside the state, and on the whole 
seemed to be worth while. There was 
probably more active interest in the 
presidential canvass of 1920 in South 
Dakota than in any other state. In 
addition to participating in the one 
required debate with Senator Poindex¬ 
ter, General Wood delivered numerous 
addresses throughout the state. Gov¬ 
ernor Lowden, Senator Johnson, Sena- 

19 See account in New York Times, Mar. 21, 
1920. 


tor Poindexter, Ambassador Gerard, 
and others of less repute—all emulated 
General Wood in their frank scramble 
for the South Dakota delegations—so 
that the campaign in general assumed 
something of the character of a free-for- 
all public debate, so much so that the 
New York Times was led to remark: 
“Tons of political literature and prop¬ 
aganda, supported by intensive per¬ 
sonal efforts, have so effectively 
muddled the presidential situation in 
South Dakota that it is indeed a bold 
man who dares to give an unrestricted 
opinion on the outcome at the state 
primaries on March 23.” 20 

The provision for public joint de¬ 
bates was repealed by the legislature of 
1921, 21 and the system has therefore 
been operative during only one cam¬ 
paign. 22 Nevertheless, the idea seems 
to have obtained something of a hold 
on the state, in that during the last 
primary and general election campaign, 
challenges to joint debate were made 
by several candidates, some of which 
were accepted and some declined. For 
example, during the primary campaign, 
Governor McMaster accepted such a 
challenge from Mr. Egan, his rival for 
the Republican nomination, and a 
highly spectacular debate was held in 
Sioux Falls. An immense crowd at¬ 
tended from all parts of the state, the 
newspapers printed unusually complete 
accounts, and although not free from 
personalities, the debate undoubtedly 
served to clarify the issues by centering 
attention in a somewhat dramatic 
fashion on the men and the things for 
which each stood. 23 During the elec¬ 
tion campaign, Miss Daly, the Non¬ 
partisan League candidate for governor, 

20 New York Times, Feb. 19, 1920. 

21 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 329. 

22 This provision was not contained in the law 
first adopted in 1912. 

23 See accounts in Sioux Falls Press and Sioux 
Falls Argus-Leader, Mar. 5-10, 1922. 



168 


* 

The Annals of the American Academy 


similarly challenged the Democratic 
candidate, Mr. Grill, which the latter 
declined on the ground that his real 
contest was with the Republican can¬ 
didate and that a debate with Miss 
Daly would simply detract attention 
from the vital issue of smashing the 
existing state machine. 

It would seem that this feature of the 
Richards primary, although decidedly 
novel and probably needing many im¬ 
provements in the details of its opera¬ 
tion, might have been of unusual value 
in arousing interest and in educating 
the public. At any rate, the idea was 
well worth a fair trial, and its repeal is 
to be regretted. 

Merit System in Appointments 

Another unique feature of the Rich¬ 
ards law, also repealed by the legisla¬ 
ture of 1921, 24 was its provision for 
official party endorsements for ap¬ 
pointive positions within the state, 
whether state or federal in character. 
Under this provision, the respective 
party state committees were consti¬ 
tuted into a sort of civil service board, 
to hear and pass upon applications for 
such appointive positions; that is, for 
United States District Attorney, United 
States Marshal, State Insurance Com¬ 
missioner, etc. The committee was 
required to act always ‘‘in public ses¬ 
sion and without subcommittees, as a 
committee of the whole,” and to make 
its endorsements by open ballot and 
majority vote. It might endorse any 
of the applicants, or it might endorse 
such other persons “as shall be agreed 
upon by a majority of such committee¬ 
men present for the betterment of the 
public service.” The endorsements of 
the committee were then to be trans¬ 
mitted to the proper appointing author¬ 
ity (the governor in most cases), if for a 
state position, or to the President, if for 
a federal position; but in the latter case 

24 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 330. 


also to the United States senators and 
representatives from the state, this 
being perhaps the first legal recognition 
of the position and power of members 
of Congress in dispensing federal 
patronage. 

Clearly this was an attempt to abol¬ 
ish the spoils system in appointments, 
and to substitute a sort of merit system. 
The constitution of the party commit¬ 
tee into a civil service board was again 
an attempt to make the party organiza¬ 
tion legally responsible for performing 
a function which everyone knows it 
actually performs without such re¬ 
sponsibility. Mr. Richards seemed to 
consider this feature of the South 
Dakota primary law as its crowning 
achievement, and was very much dis¬ 
turbed by its repeal in 1921. 

Obviously it was not possible to 
bring about any such “legal merit 
system” without the sympathy and 
cooperation of the state and federal 
appointing authorities. At least one 
application for appointment seems 
actually to have been heard and en¬ 
dorsed by the party committee (a 
federal Land Office position, in 1919), 25 
but no information is at hand to indi¬ 
cate what action was taken by the ap¬ 
pointing authorities, and apparently 
the provision has been practically 
ignored. Under those circumstances, 
it may be as well that it was repealed, 
although the principle of party re¬ 
sponsibility for appointments seems 
excellent, if impossible of execution. 

Postmaster Primary 

For the position of postmaster, the 
Richards law proposed quite a different 
method of selection, in that the party 
endorsement was to be given, not by 
the party committee, but by the party 
voters at a special postmaster primary. 
Such primaries were to be confined to 

25 Information furnished in letter to the writer 
by Secretary of State C. A. Burkhart. 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 


169 


the municipalities concerned and to the 
party of the national administration in 
power, and the result certified to the 
President, Postmaster General, and 
congressman from the district, thus 
again giving legal recognition to the 
congressional power of patronage. 

Under this provision, such post¬ 
master primaries were conducted in a 
few isolated instances, but were ap¬ 
parently ignored by President Wilson 
and the Democratic organization in the 
state. Consequently, this feature of 
the Richards primary also fell into a 
state of “innocuous desuetude,” and 
was repealed by the legislature in 
1921. 26 

Party Recall 

The Richards primary law includes 
a provision for the recall, but again of a 
sort that is decidedly unique. It is a 
party recall , which is defined by the law 
as “the right and official act of the 
regular party organization, by jury 
trial, for the causes and under the re¬ 
strictions provided in this chapter, to 
request the resignation of any public 
official who has been elected or ap¬ 
pointed to office as a party candidate.” 
This recall feature is therefore novel in 
these respects: (1) it is applicable to all 
public officials who have been elected 
or appointed as party candidates, and 
apparently not to those who may have 
secured their positions independent of 
any party; (2) it may be invoked and is 
operated by the party through which 
the official secured his office, and not 
by the general electorate; and (3) it is 
conducted as a quasi-judicial proceed¬ 
ing, with the party committee acting 
as a sort of jury. 

The causes for which the party recall 
may be invoked are stated as failure to 
adhere to the party principles; miscon¬ 
duct, crime, or misdemeanor in office; 
or drunkenness, gross incompetency, or 

26 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 332. 


neglect of duty. Recall proceedings 
may be initiated by 33 per cent of the 
party voters or by 66 per cent of the 
party committee, in either case by 
those within the territory from which 
the official was elected or appointed. 

The recall hearing takes the form of 
a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. 
A complaint must be filed with the 
recall petition, setting forth specific 
charges; jurisdiction to hear the com¬ 
plaint and to try and determine the 
charges is vested in the party central 
committee, state or county, according 
to the character of the office; the com¬ 
mittee members are specially sworn; 
counsel may be employed by both sides; 
witnesses are examined and evidence is 
taken. If 90 per cent or more of the 
committee members sustain the charges, 
a formal request for his resignation is 
served upon the official concerned. It 
should be remembered in this connec¬ 
tion that every party candidate for 
office, whether elective or appointive, 
has expressly pledged himself to obey 
the party recall, if invoked; hence 
failure to resign, when thus formally 
requested, is declared by the law to 
constitute “proof of his moral mis¬ 
conduct and corrupt conduct,” and the 
office is thereupon declared vacant. 

This recall feature of the South 
Dakota law emphasizes again the cen¬ 
tral idea of the Richards plan, namely, 
that of legal responsibility in the party 
organization for its governmental acts 
and for the persons whom it selects for 
public office. Some curious situations 
might arise under this provision. In 
Minnehaha County, for example, the 
voters were for some time in the habit 
of electing a Democratic sheriff, but 
otherwise the complete Republican 
ticket; and in the same county, at the 
last November election, the Repub¬ 
licans won all the offices by large 
majorities except one state senator. 
Clearly the sheriff and the state senator 


170 


The Annals of the American Academy 


were elected by Republican as well as 
by Democratic voters, but under the 
Richards law are in that case respon¬ 
sible only to the Democrats. Similar 
situations obviously may occur in other 
localities and in the state at large, and 
it may therefore seem that the law lays 
down a principle of doubtful value. 
The theory of the Richards plan, how¬ 
ever, is that the real selection after all 
is not by the voters in the general elec¬ 
tion, but by each party group in making 
its nominations, and that each party 
ought properly be held responsible, 
therefore, for those officials whom it has 
placed before the general body of voters. 

So far as the writer is aware, no recall 
proceedings have yet been instituted 
under the Richards law. The applica¬ 
tion of the recall provision has been 
tested, however, in the case of a county 
judge (Judge Burns of Deuel County), 
who, in an attempt to avoid ouster 
proceedings brought under another 
statute, claimed that he could be re¬ 
moved only through the party recall. 
The Supreme Court of the state, in 
denying his plea for a writ of prohibi¬ 
tion, held that “the recall procedure 
(of the Richards law) does not purport 
to cover the entire field of the matter of 
removal from office and is therefore 
only cumulative to, and not incon¬ 
sistent nor in conflict with, the general 
statutes upon removal.” 27 Although 
the court did not pass directly upon the 
constitutionality of the party recall, 
the inference from its decision is that 
the provision is valid. 

Expense 

One of the serious criticisms that has 
been made against the Richards pri¬ 
mary is that it is unduly expensive. It 
is quite obvious that the voluminous 
machinery of initial and primary elec¬ 
tions must be a source of considerable 
expense to the taxpayers, but probably 

27 See Sioux Falls Press, Jan. 27, Mar. 3, 1922. 


not much greater than any other le¬ 
gally regulated primary system. In 
addition, however, the novel features of 
the Richards primary are all a source of 
expense. The proposalmen and the 
party committeemen are paid a mileage 
of five cents each way for attendance 
upon all necessary meetings, which in 
the case of the proposalmen in 1921, 
amounted to an average of $18 apiece, 
or a total for the three proposal con¬ 
ventions, of about $10,000. The can¬ 
didates required to debate were allowed 
a mileage of ten cents for all necessary 
travel in that connection. Presumably 
General Wood collected mileage for 
travel between Chicago (then his mili¬ 
tary headquarters) and Pierre, Senator 
Poindexter between Washington and 
Pierre, Mr. Gerard between New York 
and Sioux Falls, and Mr. Monroe be¬ 
tween Maywood, Illinois, and Sioux 
Falls. In addition, mileage must have 
been paid for all the travel required by 
the 28 gubernatorial debates, alto¬ 
gether amounting to a tidy sum. 

The heaviest expense, next to the 
proposal conventions and the primary 
election, was that necessitated by the 
publicity pamphlet. Candidates w r ho 
desired the insertion of cuts and biog¬ 
raphies were required to contribute 
$100 for both or $50 for either, but 
otherwise the expense of publication 
was borne by the state. This amounted 
in 1919-1920 to $4,500. In addition, 
the expense of mailing was borne by 
each county, which in Minnehaha 
County amounted to $150, exclusive of 
clerical and other expense, and might 
be estimated at about $1,500 for the 
entire state. 

The total expense to the state in 
1919-1920 for mileage, publicity, and 
incidentals can be estimated at about 
$20,000, 28 and in addition an expense 

28 These figures are estimated from information 
supplied by the Secretary of State, in a letter of 
Dec. 8, 1921. 


The Operation of the Richards Primary 


m 


to the 64 counties of $20,000, or a total 
of about $40,000 exclusive of the ini¬ 
tiatory and primary elections. This is 
a heavy expenditure (now reduced 
through the repeal of the provision for 
the publicity pamphlet), but if the law 
accomplishes its purpose of securing a 
more effective and responsible govern¬ 
ment, the expense is a comparatively 
unimportant consideration. 

The Richards primary has probably 
come to stay. It still remains the only 
law enacted in South Dakota through 
the initiative and referendum during 
the twenty-five years of that institution 
in the state, although numerous other 
measures have been initiated and sub¬ 
mitted. Ever since its first adoption 
in 1912, the legislature has constantly 
attempted to wipe it off the statute 
books, either by direct repeal or by the 
substitution of its own measures. The 
verdict of the people has on every oc¬ 


casion but one sustained the Richards 
law; but the struggle has confirmed the 
constitutional right of the legislature 
(at least in South Dakota) to repeal or 
amend an initiated law at will. Al¬ 
though the legislature of 1921 accord¬ 
ingly did repeal several of the novel 
features—the provisions for a publicity 
pamphlet, public joint debates, party 
endorsement for appointive positions, 
and the postmaster primary—the sa¬ 
lient provisions of the Richards plan 
with respect to the proposal and selec¬ 
tion of candidates and issues remain 
intact, and are likely to be respected. 
The machinery is cumbersome and 
complicated, but has worked rather 
well in spite of dire predictions to the 
contrary. On the whole, the experi¬ 
ment has been unusually interesting 
and, as the writer feels, well worth 
while. Its continued operation will be 
watched with keen interest by students 
of government and party politics. 


The Operation of the Direct Primary in Indiana 

By Frederic H. Guild 

Indiana University 


I T has been repeatedly asserted that 
the average voter shows no interest 
in the primary. This, of itself, might 
not be an unanswerable argument 
against the primary, but certainly 
the apparent apathy of the voters does 
not aid the cause of the adherent of the 
direct primary. Newspaper comments 
following a primary election in Indiana 
bear witness that the average editor 
is inclined to condemn the primary on 
this ground. “Light Vote Cast,” or 
“Only 50 Per cent Vote,” and similar 
headlines have given the general im¬ 
pression that there is no interest in 
the primary. 

Such, however, is not the case. 
A statistical analysis of Indiana pri¬ 
mary returns, from vote for state officers 
down to the vote in townships and 
precincts, reveals an astonishing inter¬ 
est in the primary wherever the 
candidates nominated at such pri¬ 
maries have a chance of success in the 
election. 

Interpreting the Primary Vote 

There seem to be several miscon¬ 
ceptions as to the conclusions which 
can be drawn from what appears to be 
a light vote in the primary. In the 
first place, the Indiana primary vote 
over the state averages from 50 per 
cent to 54 per cent of the vote at the 
election. This is, in fact, a relatively 
high primary vote. The difficulty is 
that the primary is compared with the 
election. It should be compared 
rather to the old primary system. 
So far as can be ascertained, a 10 per 
cent vote was considered a good vote 
under the old system, and there are 


many tales in Indiana of primaries in 
which a mere handful of voters named 
the slate. A 50 per cent vote today 
then is actually an increase of 400 per 
cent in interest in the primary and in 
the extent to which the average voter 
is participating in party affairs. In 
many counties in Indiana one party 
or the other casts a primary vote of 
70 per cent, or an increase of 600 per 
cent in interest and participation. 

Moreover, in comparing the primary 
with the election, no allowance is made 
for the independent vote. While the 
independent may participate in Indi¬ 
ana, he is not a party man and should 
not be expected to participate in an 
election within the party, and his 
failure to vote in the primary in no 
wise enters into the merits of the direct 
primary. If we accept Mr. Merriam’s 
recent estimate on independent voters, 
we should not expect much over a 
75 per cent vote in the primary. In 
Indiana the proportion of independents 
is probably lower, and an 85 per cent 
vote might be expected. On this 
basis the present 50 per cent vote in 
Indiana is nearly 60 per cent of the 
vote that might be possible. And a 
60 per cent voluntary vote, with no 
party machinery to drag the voter to 
the polls, is, after all, a good-sized vote. 

Political Geography Must Be 
Considered 

But an analysis of Indiana counties 
reveals even more interest and partici¬ 
pation in the direct primary. It is 
useless to add up the total vote in the 
state and draw conclusions from that. 
The political geography of the state 


The Operation op the Direct Primary in Indiana 


173 


must be understood and allowance be 
made therefor. 

There are in Indiana 37 counties 
which are strongly Republican and 32 
which are strongly Democratic. That 
is, a study of the 19 general elections 
in Indiana in the past 38 years dem¬ 
onstrates that all of these 69 counties 
have been carried by the dominant 
party in at least 14 out of the 19 elec¬ 
tions. And in many cases the majority 
or plurality of the dominant party has 
been so great that it required the 
Progressive split of 1912 or the land¬ 
slide of 1920 to turn the plurality 
into the opposite column. In these 
19 elections, eleven counties have 
always gone Democratic; three have 
always been Republican. Five others 
were Progressive in 1912, but have 
otherwise been Republican. Six others 
went Democratic in 1912 only. 

Such strongholds of party strength 
must be considered in any analysis 
of the primary, and the conclusions 
which can be drawn from such counties 
seem to be of great importance. In 
many of these counties the nomination 
is always equivalent to an election. 
They can be compared to the states 


of the solid South where the Demo¬ 
cratic primary is far more important 
than the election. And these 69 
counties constitute 75 per cent of the 
92 counties of Indiana. 

Real Interest in Many Counties 

To illustrate the results of the 
statistical survey, two tables are given. 
The first shows ten of the strongest 
Democratic counties, giving the per¬ 
centage of vote cast in the primary as 
compared with the vote at the election 
the same year by parties for 1916, 
1920, and 1922. Li 1920 the women 
voted in the election but did not vote 
in the primary. To make the per¬ 
centages comparable with the others 
they have been consequently multi¬ 
plied by two. This is not accurate, 
but does roughly account for the 
women’s vote, and seems preferable 
to setting forth the figures without 
making some allowance therefor. 

The table shows first that the Re¬ 
publican vote in these counties is 
usually small, and uniformly much 
smaller relatively than the Democratic 
vote. On the other hand, the Demo¬ 
cratic vote is frequently surprisingly 


I. Primary Vote in Ten Strongly Democratic Counties Showing Percentage of Vote 
Cast in Primary as Compared with the Following Election 


County 

1916 

1920 

1922 

Democrats 

Republicans 

Democrats 

Republicans 

Democrats 

Republicans 

Adams . 

83.9 

48.7 

72.8 

50.2 

85.9 

36.8 

Brown . 

68.9 

46.2 

118.4 

27.4 

102.5 

27.0 

Dubois . 

71.4 

51.3 

80.2 

45.8 

93.5 

23.8 

Franklin . 

73.3 

38.3 

91.0 

40.0 

40.2 

26.9 

Hancock . 

72.2 

45.4 

63.4 

59.6 

70.2 

48.6 

Jackson. 

73.2 

44.1 

66.6 

58.0 

58.5 

43.6 

.Tnhnson . 

71.3 

56.0 

75.6* 

60.6 

79.6 

42.2 

Scoff . 

90.1 

59.4 

91.6 

64.2 

80.6 

61.6 

Sullivan . 

76.0 

50.6 

58.8 

43.4 

60.3 

50.8 

Wells . 

78.4 

47.4 

73.8 

55.8 

64.9 

40.1 








Total. 

77.2 

54.5 

74.0 

49.6 

70.3 

41.5 


















































174 


The Annals of the American Academy 


high, averaging 77.2 per cent in 1916 
and 70.3 per cent in 1920, in many 
cases rising above 80 per cent. 

The fact is, of course, that there is 
no reason to expect a high Republican 
vote in these counties where for 38 
years the Republicans have never 
won an election, and where their only 
influence can be in assisting Republican 
strength in counties joined to them for 
joint election districts. 

However, in these counties, for the 
Democrats the real contest comes in 
the primary and the voters respond. 


party is distinctly dominant, bears 
out the general conclusions of these 
two tables. There is a very real inter¬ 
est in the direct primary in 75 per 
cent of the counties in Indiana, but 
then usually in the primary of the dom¬ 
inant party only. In the other cpun- 
ties, those which may be called “doubt¬ 
ful,” the percentage of vote varies 
somewhat according to the strength 
of the majority by which the more 
successful party has carried the elec¬ 
tions; but in all cases of counties which 
can be won or lost by small pluralities, 


II. Primary Vote in Ten Strongly Republican Counties 


County 

1916 

1920 

1922 

Democrats 

Republicans 

Democrats 

Republicans 

Democrats 

Republicans 

Benton. 

54.6 

79.3 

29.2 

62.0 

33.8 

88.2 

Delaware. 

38.3 

76.5 

19.4 

61.8 

30.9 

92.6 

Grant. 

38.9 

85.4 

27.2 

89.8 

32.1 

70.0 

Hamilton. 

36.2 

67.4 

20.4 

76.8 

35.0 

87.2 

Lagrange. 

33.9 

69.1 

29.6 

82.4 

20.2 

85.3 

Porter. 

22.9 

73.6 

19.2 

96.0 

55.6 

108.1 

Randolph. 

34.9 

72.9 

12.8 

83.6 

25.9 

87.8 

Steuben. 

48.3 

90.8 

28.8 

79.8 

28.7 

93.5 

Warren. 

24.6 

67.7 

24.0 

67.6 

22.7 

91.4 

Wayne. 

33.3 

78.3 

16.0 

66.6 

19.7 

94.5 

Total. 

37.6 

76.3 

21.0 

73.6 

30.4 

77.9 


The second table shows the same 
facts for ten strong Republican coun¬ 
ties, and the conclusions from the first 
table are reaffirmed. The dominant 
party invariably polls a high vote 
in the primary—a very high vote— 
while the party which has no chance 
to win the election is not greatly 
interested, naturally enough, in nom¬ 
inating men whose defeat is certain. 
In fact, the vote of the minority party 
in these counties is far lower than for 
the minority party in the first table. 

A similar analysis of all of the 69 
counties in which one or the other 


the primary vote has usually been high. 

From this analysis, emphasis on the 
50 per cent vote cast over the state 
is obviously improper, as it includes the 
votes of one party in 69 counties 
where no one would expect anything 
but a low vote. 

The inevitable conclusion is that 
the direct primary should be retained 
in Indiana because in 75 per cent of 
the counties it is usually for county 
offices more important than the elec¬ 
tion itself, and is the only opportunity 
for the voter to cast a ballot where it 
will be of determinative value. 







































The Operation of the Direct Primary in Indiana 


175 


The Effect of the Primary upon 
the Election 

Another feature of the primary 
in Indiana has been distinctly notice¬ 
able. The direct primary partakes 
of the nature of an election. The 
arguments for and against the candi¬ 
dates are publicly made. And in 
a bitter contest members of the same 
party may attack each other with 
damaging effects. Personal feelings 
engendered may estrange the two 
factions, to the extent that the sup¬ 
porters of the defeated candidate 
may prefer to vote for the candidate 
of the opposite party rather than for 
their late adversary. Or a successful 
fight against the organization for the 
nomination may mean lukewarm sup¬ 
port by party workers in the election. 
The striking illustration is that of the 
Indianapolis Municipal Republican 
Primary in 1921 in which Mayor 
Shank was the successful minority 
nominee. So bitter was the contest 
against him in the primary that Demo¬ 
cratic papers had ample ammunition 
for the election supplied from the 
mouths of Republicans. And the Re¬ 
publican party and organization went 
through numerous distressing con¬ 
tortions in attempting to swallow the 
candidate they had not wanted. Mayor 
Shank’s election was due more to 
Democratic votes for him than to the 
success of these contortions. 

Similarly in 1922 most of the party 
workers were supporters of Senator 
New and were positively opposed 
to Mr. Beveridge. There can be no 
doubt that many of them did not work 
actively for him in the election, nor 
for that matter, vote for him. In this 
contest, however, by mutual agree¬ 
ment, both candidates refrained as far 
as possible from supplying fuel for the 
Democratic flames. 


Minority Nominees and the 
Election 

One of the serious defects of the 
Indiana primary lies in the very great 
possibility of a candidate being nomi¬ 
nated by minority vote, as the law re¬ 
quires merely a plurality. Thus in 
1922, out of the 13 congressional 
districts, eight minority candidates 
were named by one or other of the 
parties. In the municipal primaries 
of 1921, in 92 cities, 45 mayors or 
city clerks were minority candidates. 

This cannot but influence the ensu¬ 
ing election and party organization. 
Public opinion within the party has 
not had full expression, and the result 
in Indiana is distinctly visible. In 34 
cities in 1921 the tickets in the election 
were split so that mayors, clerks or 
treasurers were not of the same party. 

Under the 1915 law Indiana pro¬ 
vided for the casting of first and second- 
choice votes, the latter to be used in 
case no candidate had a majority. 
While there were numerous cases in 
1916 in which the second choice might 
have determined the result, less than 
10 per cent of the voters expressed a 
second choice, and the provision was 
abandoned in 1917. • 

Some sort of preferential voting 
seems to be necessary in order to per¬ 
fect the primary, but no mere writing 
of such a provision into the law will 
suffice. It requires several years of 
systematic education before the voter 
can be expected to leave the traditional 
scheme of voting and appreciate the 
significance of the new. Certainly 
there must be some constructive at¬ 
tempt to make the voter understand 
the new system. That has been 
distinctly lacking in Indiana. 

Effect on Party Organization 

That the primary has materially 
upset the long-standing methods of 


176 


The Annals of the American Academy 


party organization and control must 
be admitted. Minority nominations 
distasteful to the faithful workers in 
power, the present failure of the pri¬ 
mary to elect primary officers in ac¬ 
cord with the candidates nominated, 
and the independence of the average 
voter concentrating primarily on per¬ 
sonalities, has caused the politician 
uniformly to condemn the primary. 
Reward for political services by nomi¬ 
nation to an elective office is now un¬ 
certain. Where formerly a rising can¬ 
didate stepped aside for another with 
stronger demands, on the assurance 
that he would be considered next time, 
the politician is no longer in a position 
to give that assurance. Geographical 
representation, which people are quick 
to notice when it is disproportionate, 
is forgotten by the voter in the primary. 
In 1922 a member of a county council 
resigned after election because his 
election left unrepresented an im¬ 
portant township that had always de¬ 
manded representation. Such things 
the practical politician must take into 
account. The voter neither considers 
them nor understands their importance 
when he is exercising his power to 
nominate, however quick he may be to 
comment upon them later. All of 
these facts seem to lessen party re¬ 
sponsibility under the primary. Com¬ 
bined with the recent increase in 
splitting the ticket and leaving county 
and city and state government di¬ 
vided administratively between the 
major parties after election, this would 
seem to demonstrate that the party 
organization cannot fully assume re¬ 
sponsibility nor command obedience. 
As a matter of fact, however, in most 
instances, the party organization has 
seemed to keep a rather secure hold 
on the reins. In some of the larger 
counties, the organization regularly 
prepares its slate for the primary, 
and it usually goes through. In the 


smaller counties the successful candi¬ 
dates are frequently amalgamated with 
the old order, unless in a few cases they 
are strong enough to force compromises 
in their interest. Control of city, 
state and federal patronage continues 
to command for the organization a 
respect and obedience, so that party 
responsibility has not been altered as 
greatly as would first appear. 

Primary Expenses 

The cost of primary elections to the 
various counties in Indiana in 1920 
was $313,427, averaging $0.99 per 
vote cast, as contrasted with $567,599 
and $0.45 per vote for the general elec¬ 
tion. Unquestionably the expense of 
conventions or primaries under party 
control would be less. But the ques¬ 
tion of expenditure is never the deter¬ 
mining one in the case of state policies. 

The chief objection raised against 
the primary in Indiana concerns the 
expenses of individual candidates. 
This is particularly true of state-wide 
offices, where candidates must cover 
the entire state with advertising and 
mail matter. It is impossible to draw 
definite conclusions on this subject, 
but there is a strong movement in 
Indiana to eliminate state offices from 
the primary on this ground. All 
state officers are now nominated by the 
state conventions with the exception 
of the governor and United States 
senator. For these the vote is prefer¬ 
ential only unless one candidate re¬ 
ceives a majority in the primary. In 
1922 candidates were nominated by 
primary majorities. 

In 1922 Senator New reported an 
expenditure of $15,588.05. Beveridge 
reported $10,715.91. But Ralston, 
successful in the election, spent but 
$2063.01 in the primary. In 1920 
Governor McCray reported a total 
of $31,366.82. All were campaigning 
in state-wide contests. 


The Operation of the Direct Primary in Indiana 


177 


For lesser offices, it appears that it 
is possible for a state representative 
to be elected in Indiana on a primary 
expenditure of from $11 to $25, al¬ 
though some candidates spent as 
much as $150. In many cases candi¬ 
dates reported that no money was 
expended. 

For close contests in a single county, 
candidates may spend much more than 
candidates for Congress. Thus, in 
one contest for superior judge, the 
successful candidate spent $1,180.50, 
and the unsuccessful $1,297.07. The 
candidate for Congress in the same 
territory expended but $67.50 in the 
primary. A candidate for county 
treasurer needed $3,864.45 for his 
campaign. An unsuccessful candidate 
for state office before the state con¬ 
vention reported $1,134.00. 

In the face of such returns, no posi¬ 
tive conclusions are possible. A suc¬ 
cessful candidate for governor may 
spend less than an unsuccessful candi¬ 
date for county office; a congressman, 
less than a state representative or 
justice of the peace. 

Primary Does Not Control Party 
Organization 

By far too much attention has been 
centered upon nominations in Indiana, 
and practically no emphasis has been 
placed upon the question of party 
organization. It may be stated em¬ 
phatically that popular control of 
party organization through the primary 
does not exist in Indiana; has never 
existed; and, which is more important, 
has never even been attempted. 

The so-called democratization of 
party machinery, a fundamental part 
of the program of the direct primary, 
has been a total failure in Indiana. 
It is written into the law, but there it 
has remained—on paper only. 

The Indiana primary law is based 
upon the assumption that the proper 

13 


place at which popular control should 
be applied is in the precincts. Hence, 
under the law, both major parties 
regularly “elect” precinct committee¬ 
men who are chairmen of the precinct 
committees, and the foundation upon 
which the party organization is based. 
There are 3,395 such precinct com¬ 
mitteemen in Indiana. These meet 
in their county meetings as a county 
committee and elect a county chairman 
for each county. The 92 county 
chairmen meet in congressional dis¬ 
tricts and elect 13 district chairmen 
who constitute the state central com¬ 
mittee. These elect the state chair¬ 
man. 

It would be a cumbersome system 
at best, were the precinct committee- 
men the real representatives of the 
popular sentiment in their precincts 
elected to have a decisive vote in party 
affairs. But the real state of affairs 
is that the average party voter in most 
instances has no idea that such a 
committeeman exists, and certainly 
has no interest in his selection. 

To nominate a United States sena¬ 
tor, a governor or representative, or to 
express a preference for a presidential 
nominee; that the voter understands 
That he has within his grasp possible 
complete control of the party itself 
through the insignificant precinct com¬ 
mitteemen, he does not understand. 
Nor does he understand the reason why 
party control is of any importance. 

Few Contests for Precinct 
Committeemen 

Hence no citizen is interested ordi¬ 
narily in becoming a candidate for this 
lowly office. The fact is, that in 
most cases the county chairman or 
other active workers have to select 
someone in each precinct who can 
undertake the work of political organ¬ 
ization necessary for party success in 
the election, and in many instances 



178 


The Annals of the American Academy 


have to persuade that person to accept 
the position. 

A statistical analysis of the returns 
demonstrates this fully. In the first 
place, in most of the precincts in 
Indiana the candidates for precinct 
committeemen do not even appear on 
the ballots. There is no contest and 
the canvassing board certifies them as 
elected with “no opposition.” Where 
they do appear on the ballot they re¬ 
ceive but a handful of the total vote 
cast, except in a small number of 
instances where there are contests. 

For example, a study of 792 pre¬ 
cincts for the primary of 1920 shows 
that there were contests for precinct 
committeemen in 61 instances, or 
7.7 per cent. A similar study of over 
800 precincts in 1922 shows an even 
smaller number of contests. In eight 
of eleven counties in 1920 there were 
no contests in any of the precincts; 
and a contest in 31 precincts out of 
51 in one county accounts for over half 
of the contests. In other counties, 
for example, there were contests in 
three out of 44 precincts; in 10 out of 
69. In only one of these cases could 
the contest have affected the control 
of the majority of the county com¬ 
mittee. And without such majority 
control, minor personal contests be¬ 
come unimportant. It seems fair to 
conclude from the nature of the returns 
considered, that the percentage of 
contests for this fundamental party 
office in Indiana is less than 10 per 
cent. Eliminating the miscellaneous 
minor contests which cannot affect 
subsequent party control, the per¬ 
centage of real contest for party 
organization falls to 5 or even 3 per 
cent. 

The fact is that the contest for party 
control, which frequently is a real con¬ 
test, does not take place in the primary, 
however much the law intends that it 
should. The real contest comes after 


the people have voted in the primary. 
It is then a contest of faction against 
faction, and not a contest for demo¬ 
cratic control. 

Contests for Party Control in 1922 

The primary of 1922 affords in¬ 
teresting illustrations. In Marion 
County (Indianapolis) there was a 
long-standing movement to dislodge 
the “machine” which had been in 
control for eight years. This contest 
did find its way into the primary, 
and many candidates for precinct 
committeemen were known as for or 
against the existing order. After the 
primary, both factions claimed a 
majority in the county committee. 
But the assured support of each left 
some thirty doubtful committeemen 
holding the balance of power. It is a 
publicly acknowledged fact that these 
doubtful ones were definitely bought 
by city patronage by the faction seek¬ 
ing to gain control. According to the 
mildest statement appearing in an 
Indianapolis newspaper the day follow¬ 
ing: “The Mayor made no attempt 
to make a secret of the methods used 
in getting some of the precinct com¬ 
mitteemen to vote for his candidates 
for the county organization. ‘Of 
course we had to give about thirty 
of the precinct committeemen jobs 
with the city,’ Mayor Shank said. 
This public declaration of a thing which 
would have been soft-pedaled by al¬ 
most any other man in public life, 
resulted in riotous applause and cheer¬ 
ing from the crowd in the packed 
court-room.” And Mayor Shank re¬ 
iterated this statement the next month 
before the Junior Chamber of Com¬ 
merce. 

Seldom have the methods used been 
so freely admitted. But the methods 
have been used before. And the con¬ 
test in the Republican State Central 
Cpymnittee, in the election of a state 


The Operation of the Direct Primary in Indiana 


179 


chairman, developed methods of co¬ 
ercion less admitted but no less dis¬ 
gusting and reprehensible. It is a 
rather complete commentary on popu¬ 
lar control of the party organization 
in Indiana through the primary. 

Who Controls the Party 
Machinery? 

If the voter does not, who does con¬ 
trol the party organization? Strange 
enough, it is by no means certain that 
the successful candidates will. It may 
happen frequently that the party 
machinery, started through the pre¬ 
cinct committeemen in the primary, 
may be positively opposed to the 
candidates nominated by the people 
in the same primary, or more favorably 
disposed in other quarters. For ex¬ 
ample, Mr. Beveridge won the nomina¬ 
tion for United States senator in the 
Republican primary in 1922. But it 
was unquestionably Senator Watson 
who secured a dominant control of 
the party organization through the 
election of a state chairman and con¬ 
sequent control of the state central 
committee. 

Mayor Shank had been elected in 
the municipal election of 1921. He 
was in no way officially connected with 
the 1922 primary. But there is again 
no question that it was he who secured 
control of the Republican Party or¬ 
ganization in Marion County. And it 
was repeatedly claimed that the na¬ 
tional committeeman for Indiana had 
largely determined the election of the 
district chairman for that congressional 
district. Not only was party control 
not seized by the voter; it was secured 
by men who were in no sense before 
the public eye in the primary itself. 

Democratic Control a Myth 

The fact remains that democratic 
control of party organization in Indiana 
is a myth. The real contests come 


after the primary, and are beyond 
popular control. The voter usually 
has no distinct knowledge concerning 
these contests even if he does happen to 
see the name of a committeeman on 
the ballot and place a cross beside his 
name. It would be better if precinct 
committeemen were appointed in law, 
as they virtually are in fact, by the 
county chairmen; and if popular atten¬ 
tion were concentrated on the first 
real contest, that for county chairman. 
If the voters of a county were to vote 
for a single party officer instead of 
for 20 to 200 precinct committeemen, 
there would be better chance of a real 
expression of public opinion; and at all 
events a real contest in which public 
sentiment could be aroused intelli¬ 
gently would be transferred to the 
primary within reach of the voter. 

Delegates to State Conventions 

Similarly there is no popular control 
of state conventions. There is more 
interest in this office in Indiana than 
for precinct committeemen however. 
These delegates are also “elected” 
at the primary. Contests for these 
positions run from about 20 per cent 
to 30 per cent in counties surveyed 
where there were contests in 1920 and 
1922. But in 63 per cent of the 
counties studied there were no con¬ 
tests. In many instances the delegates 
were omitted entirely from the ballot 
and certified without vote, the voter 
never seeing the name or the name of 
the office of delegate whom he is sup¬ 
posed to have elected as a basis for 
democratic control of the chief as¬ 
sembly of the party. From the re¬ 
turns utilized, a 12 per cent contest 
for delegates would seem to be the 
Indiana average. This is an entirely 
insignificant proportion so far as any 
possible effect upon control of the 
convention is concerned. It is cer¬ 
tainly true that the state conventions 


180 


The Annals of the American Academy 


of the two major parties in Indiana 
are in no sense controlled by the voter 
within the party, even though he may 
“vote” for a delegate in some cases. 

Voters Ignorant of Methods of 
Control 

The reason for this failure is not 
hard to find. We have regularly 
depended upon the political parties to 
educate the voter in all matters po¬ 
litical. In an election they accom¬ 
plish this to a certain extent in the 
discussion of issues and candidates. 
But if the organization interferes in 
the primary, machine control is at 
once alleged. And if the party workers 
do not interfere, the usual education is 
lacking as its chief agency has been 
removed. 

Moreover, the party workers very 
generally have been strenuously op¬ 
posed to the primary. It is not to be 
supposed that they would attempt to 
inform the voter how to exercise his 
powers to wrest control from their 
hands. And we have provided no 
other means of informing the voters 
concerning the significance of party 
control or how to secure it. 

This failure is not a failure of the 
primary law, except in so far as it 
expects public opinion to focus on 
offices concerning which the voter is 
ignorant, and, moreover, in which he 
cannot be interested. The law pro¬ 
vided the machinery for the democ¬ 
ratization of party organization. 
What is needed now is some method 
of concentrating party attention on 
the important contests and persuading 
the primary voter that zeal in nominat¬ 
ing candidates might be better spent 
if he were to remember that he is also 
electing party officials. 

The chief defect of the Indiana 
primary at present lies in the over¬ 
emphasizing of the nomination of 
candidates and the almost total ignor¬ 


ing of the election of party officials. 
The voter in the primary is not par¬ 
ticularly nor strikingly successful in 
selecting better candidates than were 
chosen by the party workers under the 
old system. If that were all there was 
to the primary, we might be better off 
under the old primary or convention. 
But it is the question of party control, 
however much it has been overlooked, 
that should be the dominant question 
in the primary. With popular con¬ 
trol of party a fact, nominations 
perhaps would be easily taken care 
of through the party committees. 

To revert to the old primary and 
convention system, as things now are, 
gives no promise of improvement. 
Today, as large a proportion as 90 
per cent of the voters in some counties 
participate in party primaries. Their 
zeal is considerably misdirected towards 
nominations, it is true, but still they 
are interested and do participate. 
And yet their control of the party,— 
popular control,—runs as low as 3 to 
12 per cent. What could be expected 
if their main interest were removed? 
It is hopeless to assert that they would 
come out in similar force to a primary 
where their sole participation would 
be the selection of committeemen and 
delegates in whom they are now not at 
all interested. 

To argue that the primary should 
be discarded as a failure is to declare 
that real control of government should 
be relegated to self-appointed commit¬ 
tees, or factions thereof, with no 
semblance of popular control. It were 
as well to restate the argument in this 
form:—that the people are neither 
interested in, nor capable of governing 
themselves,—for that is what it means. 
People are used to elections and ballots 
as the method of expressing their 
political opinions. And the possi¬ 
bilities lie through utilization of this 
interest, not in destroying it. 


DIGEST OF PRIMARY ELECTION LAWS 


BY 

Charles Kettleborough, Ph.D. 
Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Indiana 


Mandatory Primary 


182 


Ph 

< 

a 

W 

Oh 

Ph 

H 

<1 

Q 

W 

H 

*< 

g 

a 

o 

5? 

w 

<3 

CO 

W 

H 

3 

Q 

5? 

<1 

U 

K 

o 

HH 

X 

£ 

« 

o 

Pm 

to 

W 

u 

I—I 

Pm 

Pm 

o 


The Annals of the American Academy 


a 

.2 

4J 

3 
E 
j3 

a> 

Q 

"3 ’e 

g § 

£ u 

£-s 


<v 

3 

Q 

<u 

H-4 

3 

T3 


>> 

t- 


tH _ 

|| 
3 /h""* 


be 


03 

t- 

o 

H- 

03 


£ CQ 

£ £ 

«h-h 03 

° a 


CO 

3 

O 


c« 

t— 

03 

3 

t>C 


u 

Pk n 

be *rt 

H 


O 

£ 


Ui 

03 

-Q 


3 

£ 


>> 

«4 

o 

H-H 

C3 

-c 

a 

3 

n-i 


Ji 

CO 

a3 

■-a 


03 


o 

3 ®* 

.2 o 
-S -m 

c 0 

.5 <0 

2 -o 

O 03 

£ S 


' o 

Cw -M 
1 § 
§ 1 

3 £ 

§ & 
’E g 

3h Oh 

03 3 

£ O 

O *rH 


Ut 03 
JtS o 

5 ) *& 

03 -3 
U 

03 03 

g >» d 

-° 03 g 

"d S 


-2 


(h 

03 O Oh 

>i r -1 ; 

3 .g 

t> c 

o 1 2 

GO 3 <n 


C ■+-> 
•- X 

03 

^ #» 
a> cn 
<v 

S'i 

£> o 
t- « 

(X 00 

4-J 
*+h C/3 

O c3 

0) 




c3 


o ^ 
c if a) 
c o -M 
4-» c3 

&S*S £ 
^.S 

03 O >? 

-a ’-' £ 

C 03 

03 eg Oh 

73 *+-< 

a> -m o 

*”* 8 03 

4J g 4-> 

o 2 o 

a a > 


Mh 

3 

Oh 


^3 

o pa 

r-H O 

CJ 

3.2 

_ 43 

+J 

o 

00 > 




03 

4—* 

o 

► 


h 

o3 

Oh . 
-M 

=H_ O 

0 .2 

££ £ 

*0 Oh 


03 

4-> 

o 

> 


o3 

a . 

4-> 

M-H 43 

0 .2 

&S $ 

HO O. 


2 “5 

CC ' 
Oh -f-> 

CO 

«4-H Cw < 

O <D 


o 

I-* -c 

_ o 

O 03 

43 

•Kp 

<5^ O 

no > 


03 

H-> 

O 

> 

“3 

tj 43 

^H rH 

ca .O 

& 03 
03 

«mh ' = 

o pa. 


c n 

■— 

O 


03 

^H 


5 g 

C 

0) 03 
43 03 

^ g 

!s ts 

HJ 

0 Cfl 

x! 

•12 

2*a 

Ph C3 


O 03 
43 Mh 

2 43 

& 03 

03 iC 
03 ?o 
43 O 


JO 

"be 

03 


03 

03 43 03 

43 ’~~ i bo 
43 m-i "d 
O p 
03 


w 

m 

o 




_ V 

o =3 
U co 


O 03 

w Mh Mh 

>> g 2 
hj >q *r 

g a g 

>r 43 Oh 


O 

u 


03 

03 


a 

a 

o 

03 

+-> 

03 

.2 

‘S 

03 

(h 

Ph 


c 

03 


03 

03 

c6 

03 

Ph 

Ch-i 03 

o jy 

03 -O 
03 d 
V HJ 
•— 03 

03 g 

3 0 


2 g 

43 03 

if 

O 0 
>» ^ 
.-a § 
U H 


03 

3 
bo 
3 
< 

03 
Sh 

O 

«4-l 

43 „ 

-O " 

03 >> 

Mh 

GO O 


-d 

>7 

3 

3 

3 

3 

>i 

3 

03 

Mh 

O 

a 

*H —1 

03 

• m 
t- 

-O 


e3 


03 .3 

3 & 

-o Mh 
03 

40’S 

03 O 


43 a 

i§ 

Cv * 4 J 

O 43 
"43 

O 

o 

03 43 

H-3 

w • s 

O - cS " 
rn|CH 43 3 


03 


03 

43 g 
43 43 


C« 03 03 .3 

O 73 4 ffi ffi 

.2 43 03 «S 'S 


1E5 


0 HP ° S 

Q & Cj 

rs 0 .Sr 

.a -3 4? 52 0; 

03 2 3 C *3 

* ^h O 3 t> d 

335:3 


3 

U 


w 

J 

n 
■< 
u 

1—1 

3 

Ph 
Ph 
H < 
3 
HJ 
Ph 


O 

H 

ce 

w 


M-l J_ I 

o o-r: 

2 43'' "d 
04-142 

a s 3 

** •+-' r/) 

Mh W 

0 c 

3vO •" g 

03 •43 
-m .T2 

be 2 


o 

& 


» I >, s 
o 2 


3 .2 

3 03 


M-i 

o 

03 

t- 

o 

a 

•— 

o 


3 

03 

>i 

3 

3 

t— 

O 




03 
GO -g 

be > 
.2 03 

4-4 tH 

2 *J3 

rg 3 
OH 03 


03 3 
-3 

4-> 

Mh 

4-4 O 

3 *4- 
O 

-3 43 

3 

2 'd 
o .3 

. ^3 

o 2 


(4 

-3 


2 « 


PiH 43 4-1 

» *4 3 

'd 3 .3 

i; +4 O 

^3 03 .r-» 


>H 

3 

3 

a 

M 

3 

Cm 

O 

H 

H 

<1 

Q 


S5 

o 

►4 

H 

<! 

H 


Q 

*< 

W 

H 

Hj 

Eh 

C/2 


O 43 O 

‘Sh- 0 

u -d 
>» 0 g 

3 —H 3 

-d 3 _ 

03 Mh 
03 03 

3 3 

^ bet; 

-3 ^ « 
3 43 
3 — 

o .a 

03 


3 

O 


Si 

W 


4- 1 3 

0 a 

*E .2 

(X -*-» 

^ 4; 
03 03 

C^s "3 

3 43 

-d o 
o | 

GO O 

3 Jh 

3 O 

s 

4-1 4—H 

03 ‘o 
43 O 


— 00 

3 . 

*43 A 
03 rj 
Oh 

M of 

03 05 

.a ^ 

^ 3 
3 03 .2 
3 k t« 

o Ch 03 
N g 43 

c 


» -J I 

is Ph o 
3 ^ 

hP t- 0 

05 


GO 


OI 

03 


•“ 3 

-d 54 
03 no 


43 

03 

c n 


-d 

3 

03 

a 

3 


05 „ 

. CO 
3h >— 1 
- 05 

no r_l 


3 05 • 

3 r-H c/2 


00 

* ^ 
ro rf< 

l-H -3 

J> 05 
nf no 
O >rf 
CO 




a 

3 
3 

K A 

•H 3 

03 

>1 > 
3 43 

no ^3 

cn 

H 3 ® 

o 

4-> +J 
03 to 

3 3 

hJ S 


>4 3 

4 S 

8 M 

3 C 

H ^ 

03 


3 

C 


03 


43 
• 03 

*4 J_| _ 

3 ft 0) 
43 ** -3 

>s « S 

•s 8 g 

S 

HO GO 3 


03 

3 


i> 

r-H 

05 


05 


05 

GO 2 05 

rH 43 r-H 
• "<3 03 

a >3 y 

00 <3 

r-H 'd 

3 03 03 r_ 
d3 
3 
03 

a 

3 


43 

<3 

-d 

3 

3 


3 

-H 

o 


M 


GO 

GO 


'TC 

2 i 


I—< 

03 


CJ 


3h go 


03 

05 05 



















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


183 


• « 
05 -t-> 

o 22 

^ X 
— d 

cd od 
C « 
O _~ 
to "S 
t-i 45 
<15 03 

a « 

.2 c 
X o 

d * 

►—i t- 


' 45 

d 45 
cd d 
45 

b 45 


cd 

£ £ 

a - 

45 •£ 

4-> CO M 
03 •« 45 

bc-d -a 
-2 <D ’w 
45 ^ 


a> 


o 


CO 0) 1 

• * ' _ 

<» 

J5 X 

ca .tJ 

£ 

45 

-t-> 

d a) 
-a o 

1 s 

d a 

45 45 
O 

^ 45 

< c<3 


' 45 

d -m 
O cd 
4) X) 


5 * d 

>> S 

^ 05 

d 45 

4-5 4-5- 

o3 o3 d 

d d o 
3 .SP‘-5 

d ‘5 c 

O 45 45 

d -d > 


ft 

45 

45 

45 

c3 

.2 * 

^ £ 

2 


45 

O 

d 

03 


co 
>» 
o3 

*d 

o 

rf< 

-d 

J5 

4B 

45 

-Q 


>5 2 , 

cd b 


W5 

05 


d 

o3 


co 

d 

s 


§ -d 

be 

d 

< >> 
45 £d 

2 a 

45 s-< 

-d a 


2 "d 
u 45 
a 4-> 

^ 45 
,45 

Id "45 
ft 

•5 d 
•d 45 
d _o 
d 

£^ 

g £ 

O (h 

^ cd 
45 r-i 
-O £ 


45 >> 

■*j 2 

d & 

q; G-t 


<» « 
53 3 

4—5 

o h|c* 

r* * 

O 

4-> 

^ d 

4 ? 4-5 
-C c/3 


d 05 
5*^ ^d 
-ft ^ 


*d 

45 


t- 

o 

d 
u 
45 
> 

O 45 
be J5 
(- 45 

° d 

45 

0 i 

> >■ 


o > 

©5 t- 
- O 




45 


co 

*> 

• 

G 

co 


0) 

-M 

G 

+-> 


<D 

4-> 

o 

> 


Ph 

g 

a 


P-4 

G 

CX 


©5 


t- 

o 

d 

t- 

45 

> 

o 

be 

c- 

o 


t- 

o 

d 

s- 

45 


45 

SSl 

fHl(N 


.2 ~d 
1 o 

i -2 

« & 

s >» 

d 03 

§ £ 

d 

CO 

05 45 

r> 

H -d 


*5 o 
45 

ft 45 

4-5 

>» d 

_Q 45 

4 a 

■d 

o t- 
d^ 45 

o3 45 

~o 

(h 

45 O 

^ a 

d .2 

o *5 


x»i 

4-> d 

53 § 

a £ 
o3 o 

-d 

g d 
.2 .0 
d +- 1 

03 ro 
d 05 

be > 
"w d 
45 o 
-c o 


45 45 

■s s 

£ *- 

£ 0 

2 o 

g c© 

‘■J2 >» 

• *“* iP 
4-> 

2 -d 

be §q 

.£ •« 


1 E 
J 0 

d "w 

C3 • <—< 

»-• 4_5 

CO 

u 2 
e£ 'O 
d 

« ^ 
fc «J 

4-1 d 

O 5 

> CO 


>» O 

d d 

d . 


(H 

o 


d 

-d 


45 

45 


-d m 

d o 


c3 

CO 

'— 

45 

45 


(-< 

45 

-C 


t- 

fc- o 

45 d 

° g 

45 
CO 


e 

o 

45 

+-> 


C/3 


a; 

i 

3 

CO 

be co 
o ^ 
c — 0) 

g °l 
s 2 0 

|l.2 

& £ £ 

g flj CO 


T » 4 J v 1 • 


11 
O 4) 
- J5 

03 45 

fH 

O d 

^ d 

«> .2 

05 '£ 

d d 

a g 

^ d 

45 O 

Q U 


45 JL, 
r-d 45 
+4 x) 

2 

° H 

CO 

S « 

o gf> 

45 d 
-d d 
+4 45 

4-> 

>5 5 

-d m 


d M 

45 05 

45 4-5 
d 03 
c d 

► 45 

X 4-1 

45 15 

45 45 

45 

45 ^ 
CO +4 
45 
45 

CO ft. 
45 05 

-g 

be d 

45 o3 


s- 

O c3 

Ph co 
0 ) 00 ; 
-M eil -m 
O G 

> g be 
O o 

d "d ^ 

co -d o 
5r! " d ft 
45 .£ 3 
O 'O O 

> .£ be 


45 

4 § 

■fe m *® 

O o CO w 
CO w P-. 

>,§£•£ 
45 5 15 15 

POSQuu^ 


t- 

o 

4-5 

cd 

d 

45 

CO 

c/5 


d 

45 


£ ffl 

45 ^ 

be 45 
d 


co 

i-* 

45 

CO 45 


CO 

■ t- 


u 

45 

4) 


d .2 d 




*4-3 O 

O a 

45 -£ 
u, d3 

§ 2 
£ d 
cd 
45 

d 
c3 


45 


CO 


G 

eg 

O 


Ph 

O 

CO 

be 


G o 
Vj > 


05 •£ 

-d o 

-M • r-s 
*5 « 

d t- 

o O 

-d 1H . 

be^o 05 

d x 

O co d 
s-i 4Q 
_d t- -d 

7 : o -d 


05 U 

t- o 

o «4-l 
£ £ 
^ B 

O co 
- d 
££« 
2 o 
be-Pi 

d cd 

1 ® 
U *0 


t- 

o 

d 

s- 

45 

> 

O 

be 


03 # 

4 

S £ 

^d 

a 


d 45 

>> 


G 

>»"d 

■d 

e? .2 

8 £ 

CO 

45 

d 

H 

r -1 co 

-d 

45 

c 

d s- 

O 

co a 

a 

S ‘c 

45 

C/2 


■c £ 

45 

t- ^ 

45 

-d co 

d -d 

o 45 
45 


d - d 
d .WO 

45 CO 45 • — 

4-5 L* •r* 4-< 

w ft cd Je 4/ 

4) 45 45 2 J5 

C/2 C/2 >5 d 05 


CO 


03 


CO 

4-5 


d 


O 


0 


<5 


* <0 

CO 



CO 

4-5 



45 


-Q 


C/2 

CO J 4 

G ^ 



, 


■d 


.2 

K© b ©j 

45 ' 


'45 

1H 03 

n0 


45 

—4 ©5 

e 


ft 

• T3 

45 

e 

0 

C/2 

ft 45 ~ 

x ft 

d , 

■d 

- 

4-r d - 

cd co 

cd 

co 

2 45 H 

1-H 

W 03 

1-4 

O 

^ a o< 
03 d 03 

cd 1—1 

'o 


<-< cd r-< 


















Mandatory Primary— Continued 


184 


The Annals of the American Academy 


8 

< 

§ 

5 

Ph 

H 

<3 

Q 

M 

H 

< 

£ 

NH 

a 

o 

fc 

w 

8 

<3 

CO 

W 

H 

«3 

Q 


CJ 

K 

u 

s 

£ 

a 

o 

tv 

CO 

W 

o 

Ml 

tv 

tv 

o 


£5 

O 

• ^M 

Cj 

P- 

^2 

13 

0 > 

Q 

3 

O 

CO 

s- 

45 

Pm 


4) 

a 

Q 

4) 

-M> 

03 

T3 

• *"M 

"d 

a 

3 

cj 


V. £►» 

© a 
1 .§ 
I* 

I S 

o 

a>*s 

s & 

«4—I 

° Q 


I I 

•p* CD 
Pm • •-< 

Pm 

o 

Pm 

O U 

Cm—< 

s 

co 

CO t 

>s o 

3 •*" 
^ >> 

<= a 

CO 6 


CO 

>> 

cS 

d3 

o 

©< 45 

*rj ° 

a m 

c3 O 

8 £ 
m § 

° o 

3 g 

H O 


c« +j 
>> 22 


o 

a 


o 

CO 


o 

CO 


CO 
3 

. m 

«3 -C 

s 

3 c3 


_J 2 
2 ® 2 
P O £ 

&H -O CO 


£*? ©5 

pH 

d Pm 

a £ 

• |H 

fa >> 
d 

H 

o3 3 
d. 

•m> 

-d -a 
0 ) ■£ 
+■> o 
o s 

> o3 


ya ^ 

"5 § 
8 8 

* 4) 
^ M3 
cO ■ M 

c a 
S 2 

* «*-H 

CD 

Pm rtj 

03 £ 
4J «3 
>> O 


2 t» 

3 u 
O V 

s a 

■M *3 

4J C/2 

Pm iw 

tUD ° 
3 «- 

.a | 

is 

£ 


4) 3 

2 > § 
,_H O • » 

3 W>tl 

a v. s 

5 O 4) 


<u 

V. 

o 

a 


05 


co 

> 45 

8 4) - 
V -)-> 3 


co e 

>>d3 

3 

-d . 

K*S 

co 3 

O .1 

•M> t- 

o a 


co co 
3 >> 

O 3 

S'* ^ 

-*-> O *- 

^ o a 

CO -M 1 

3 ^ 


s- 

Cu 


CO 


45 


2 2 

£3 O 
^ «— 

4) 

.2 02 


,3 3 4) 

S -d ■£ 
o p 2 

4) «£ 

,ts v> i 

0 3-3 


*d 

4) 

H 

‘S 

cr 

o 

«H 

4) 

3 

O 


-d 

<u 

u 

• vH 

3 

CT 

4) 

ti 

4) 

3 

O 

£ 


>> 

Ci 

O 

■*-> 

3 

'd 

3 

3 

s 



4) 

State offices 
Congressmen 

County offices 

U. S. senators 

>» 5 

4) d 

8 J 2 £ 

fe .SS o 

5 M M o 
a; d “ j> m 
^ M s •*- O 
:cE°o 
■r?d ° 2 a 
.H 1 ^^'S 

v. O fl fl 3 
to o 5 4 ) 3 

QDtcSSS 


a 

u 


o 

H 


► * H 
^ 3 

a 

<3 
o 

« § 

H -S 
a 

Mj 

Pm 


"M M •>.. I 

o CO r? CO 

4)mCO 

2 •- O 

a ^ - 

► c 3 
t 1 ^ 4; o 3 

o o m .2 © 

«— 3 CO .5 

vO> *-> »5 M-> 

C # 4) ft. 

^B&O 
wi > — 3 

0 u. O 

•X3 — 4> « J W3 

W 3 o -e . 4> 

3 -g 50 ^ .g *43 

CJ +j o o -m 'o 


^ 3* 

"O 3 

-M 

Pm 

«*-M O 


CJD ° 
8 4) 


3 
O 


o $ 

i—I CO 

t>C*« 
3 ° 
*-5 o 

co JZ 
3 o 

CJ > 


co 


> 

3 
-3 

Ch 33 
, O (V 
-d •*- 
3 co co 
3 4) 3 
4J •— 

a 

8*1 ^ 
E o £ 

0 3 0 


tH 

a 

a 

M 

a 

Ph 

a 

o 

a 

H 

<3 

Q 


3 O 
4) rt 

£ 3 
3 *“S 

’ 

>»*S 

fls 

J = S 
H o >• 

■s ^ > 

3 CO o 

faa o 


I 

< 

ci £ 

3 

>> >, 
o3 

-d 3 

co o 
*' > 
o 


4) 

3 

H 


CD * 4 “ # 
2 CD 

• r “ 3 
Ph be 


t5 

O 

M 

H 

< 

H 

IM 

u 

a 

55 

<3 

W 

H 

m; 

H 

C/2 


3 

•d 

• *-M 

Pm 

o 


CD CD 

Oi -f- 

co cj a 

3 < < 

U oo 
■d co 

co -o • 
o CJ 

a 

3 


CD •* •» •» 

(j JO CO ® O 
o O 

05 05 05 05 


05 


CD 

+-» 

O 

<5 


*o 

r-H 

05 


co 

CO CO 
O +J M 

<< o o 

na d P 
4) 

*d 
_J 3 

So*. 

i a^^ 

|M 3 Qj CJ 


O 

«5 


-3 

u 


i> l> 

Tfl 

*3 CO 


C/2 

pd *> 

^ CO 

• *> oo 

05 | 

®* 05 
05 05 
*3 Oi 

-a g 

U C/2 


05 

oo 

d 

•» 

05 

05 

»-H 

CD 

° i 

-3 ^ 
3 l-J 
03 






















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


185 


§ 

a 

8 

o 

a 

- 

a 

Ui 

# c$ 


CQ «*-i 

u* O 

v 7 

-*-> Ui 

>i 
a 2 

O w 


t- P 

o -a 

. *■> 
p oi 
4) 43 


tJ p 

3 -a 

43 4-» 

•d 

-o g 

§ .1 
to 

:* +-> 
>> o 
t C 

ft « 
-a 

43 P 

43 


**- I 

o c 

cd 
p 

ft 4-> 

g, g * 

-c 

c S ° 

,2 ft u 
5 4)0 
cS X) ,- 

c a p m 


S3 *" 

o « 

2 £ 

P O 

ft a 

c3 


60 

3 


a 

o 

a 


s >. 

~ % 
cS "d X> ft 


a 


§08 
2 iJ'g 

W co 
>> « 
«2 u B 
•2 50 
o o 

>j 

V •£ 
o 2 .0 

^ a ^ 

o *5 .2 
© ft d> 


a 2 

cq 

u o> 

o 4ft 

^ o3 

cc3 4> 

T3Q 

O 

o 'rt 
4-> ft 


>> 60 

03 3 , 

a ■•-» 

z «3 
a a 

O bo 
4-j 'co 
3 0 ) 
P -0 

§ & 
O «e 

_ ft 

g 88 

o .2 
•42 ©j 


60 
2 .5 
te 

4) ■£ 
O co 

a 

p p. 
p © 

p 

Ci ■*-> 

ft a 

V 

T> 

» , • ^ 
.3 CQ 

r* U 

•5 ft 


1 

t- 

P 

•fc-i 

4 

Ch 

a 

o 

c 

CO 

c3 

43 

p 

43 


o3 

43 


P 

P 

s 

0 ) 


CO 

>» 

cS 

d 

o 

06 


O 

co 


4) 4) 

4~> *-> 

o3 cS 

*J 4-> 

co co 

Ch 

O ^ 
— O 

o •*- 
o 

© 

<* 2 
o 

4-4 

O P 

© p 

® B 

1—1 O 


4-> CO 

o *-> 

. > P 

I H CJ 
8 ® 
s 0 O 

Jgs 

a ^ 43 

o «<-< d 

P O O 

»— H|N Ch 
CQ 
U 

4-> 

c 
0 ) 

o 


a 


S3 

o3 to 

a 8 


c 

s.s 
.a « 

XJ 
w 

O 23 

CQ 

g.S 

U co^ 

-a S 3 r 

4J S O 

©Bte 
^ o <j 


*d 

*d 

p 

p 

»4 

u 

’3 

*3 

© 

O' 

p 

p 

t- 

i- 

p 

p 

c 

3 

0 

O 





4> _a 

^ ’-5 

4- co CO 

§ g & 
U § "C 

H ^ 


& 

>» 

g 


1 

P 


p 

(4 


®< 

3 

ci 

3 

tH 

O 

3 

O 

• 

CQ 

a 

0 

-♦-> 

CQ 


0 

a 

r . 


43 

4-> 

P 

4-H 

• 

> 

a> 

rP 


M 

O 


P 

>-H 

O 

CQ 

3 

d 

tO 

IS 


© 

o3 

4ft 

a 

a 

• H 

CQ 

u* 

£ 


rH 

O 

> 

60 

3 

P 

44 

1 

«4-< 

O 

p’ 

60 

3 


• M 

-fr-> 

CQ 

ed 

U 

O 

> 

O 

•4ft 
• ** 

’o 

ft 

C 

t— 

^3 

4ft 

4-4 

c3 

-d 

■d 

• 

4ft 

CQ 

03 

U 

4ft 

O 

4^ 

O 


• S c 

>i a 

-§ o 

co * J 

a *- 

° 

H 'c- 

•d 

C —' 

O *g 

8 ft 

C /2 *< 


43 

4 

ft 


£ 6 
«s cfi 


'-30 

o 4-> 

4) 


4) 

C-I 

<V 

43 


3 

T3 . 
co 
4> 

3 

H 

44 

CO 


4 ° 

O *42 
r p 


’P 


z 2 


a a 
2 <5 


43 -o 

O fcH 
ft *S 

1 5 

C5 C 

.a o 

>» - 

88 § 
T3 .3 
co +J 
P p 
3 P 

H ”p 

1 a 


33 P 

"3 Ch 

<3 o 

«4-H 

P 

-4 42 

*Ci CO 

ft4C 

<3 g 

3 £ 

£".g 

'd £ .2 

CO h 4_> 

p p p 
3 43 p 

-4 — 
O P 


'-4-^ 

03 


>=> e 

S3 S M 

' o J 

£ >» ^ 
"T3 g 
4J 3 • — 

3 O 


S T3 

x 
£ 
aJ 


CQ 

ft 


^ CQ 
tH ft 

fa cd 


CQ 

ft 

d 


-ft 

CQ 


0 ) 

ft 

ctf 

CQ 

C 

o 


— U H0 

O P P 


co 

cS 


© 


CO 


Oi 

- 1—1 


> CO co 

• 5 ^ ^ 

ft*- 3 •- ft cij 

©-d 50 ^- 
r_1 ft T-' >- 1 1 —I 

„ 111 C * M # CO 

.2 sc p £2 £ £ £ 

O cj A a (3 cj cS 

.a ft § 2 ft ft ft 


>» 

42 

"d 

p 


© 
-rj ®2 
C ^ 
P 4 

a ^ 

« ft 

, . to ®* 

© © © 03 © 


— © 

© 

© . 
. .3 
ftU 

CO f-H 

ft 

© © 


CO 

^ C /2 
3 


«5 

Hi 

»o 

-cf 


CO 

i> Is 

• a ’4 ^ ^ 

ftft ft W C/2 


CO 

03 

8 * 5 

d.43 

« >> 
«6 42 
^ —4 

875 15 

i-h ^ 
e3 to c 
3 |S P 

a 

•d ft 03 

3 


Is 

o3 

ft .. 
-d 2 
§ “5 


P 

cS 


© 

ft “4 

-fi 4J 

C/2 


04 

H I. 


-ef 

Hi 

on 
ft ft 

n r> 

1> H 

i-h ®4 

© © 


ft 

« »o 
© 
J> 
^ I 

= 3 

0 ‘O 

m ® 

















Mandatory Primary— Continued 


186 


The Annals op the American Academy 


X 

■< 

a 

M 

G 

P 

H 

Q 

W 

H 

< 

£ 

a 

o 

£ 

a 

2 

< 

03 

a 

H 

< 

Q 

>-i 

Q 

<5 

P 

W 

0 

M 

a 

£ 

« 

o 

fa 

m 

fa 

o 

M 

fa 

fa 

o 


G 

o 

• 

c$ 

*h 


0) 

"S 

Q 


13 « £ 


G 

a 

o 

cc 

fa 

0) 

P 


03 

£3 

03 

p 


fa >3 

c b 

a a 

3 *- 

P 

03 

fa 

o 


*?'o3 

J- PP 

s £ 

*44 G 

° Q 


cc 

a 

o 


4) 

P 

be' 

.S 

+4 

o3 

G 

'a 

o 

£ 


w 

fa 

03 

G 

be 

crj 


fa 

<u 

S 

3 


03 

G 

03 

a 


03 

a 

o3 

03 


"O 

03 


03 

ex 

be 

.a 

4-4 

o3 

G 

a 

o 

G 

03 


fv^ <-C3 
KH -M 


c 

o 


CO I 

-2* >>.2 
CJ^'O 
G X! 

O _ TJ 
« ® G 
00 G 

O "S ^ 

s jS 

03 03 05 

G «- 

O == © 


i 

O 


fa =+4 

* o ° 

p 

03 


+4 O 

G 

P O 03 


>> 

G 

”0 

O 

-f 

03 

03 

03 

SE 

o 




>> rH 
g - 

a g 

p-4 Q} 

b o 

a 5E 
0 ) o 
-G 

-fa-} 

<d 


G r-4 

J> *44 

4-4 0 

c3 ■-'If* 

G "£ 
G 

03 

fa 
03 


G 


G 

03 

03 


03 

03 

03 

® 

o 


o 

> 


a £ 


G 


G 

£> o 

■S « 

G O 

a 4- 1 


o 

03 

4-> 

o 

> o 

>4'£ 

t.3 

G TO 
P fa 
*44 O 
O P 


03 4-4 

_G « 

~ -c 

fa04 

G ’’•3 
• »■* 

03 03 

ft -G 
03 4_> 

4-> 

O «*- 

> O 

fa- W 
03 

b 

g c 
P 3 
»+-* O 
O 03 


^ © 


G 

G 

-G 


03 

03 


03 


G 
G 
O 

>,* 


« s ti 

*4 


03 03 

-G -G 


03 


O 0) » 

a rG if 

GO 

G fa-4 

G O 


-o 

03 


03 

fa 
03 
03 

ffi >. 

C 4-j 

Ph 

>> s 

j-> CL 


a 

03 

fa 

©4 

G 

03 

fa 

O 

P 


G 
oT 

fa 
03 

4-4 

o 

> 

o 
o 
o 

r\ 

. «5 

>4 - 

■fa 03 
G be 

5 -o 

O G 
03 .G, 


fa- ® 

G ^ 
G - 
O & 
03 bo 

-G "2 
03 fa 
G 

03 4-> 

•S -g 

o -Sa 

w ^3 

4-4 W 
M fc4 

G O 

« En 


o 

»o 


o 

fa *o 
o (S3 

EL . 

03 

. be 

>>03 

■s 3 


G 


O 

O 


.JH CO 
fH P 

-G 

03 03 

03 



a 0 

03 

CO > 


>> 

Ih 

O 

-ffa 

ct 

fi 

s 


04 

03 

03 

X 

03 

03 

# > 

'4J 

03 

03 


fa 

o 


03 

fa 

o 

44 

03 

J3 

13 

"g 


03 


G "-fa 

03 a § 

^ P Ph 


« -o 
t5 3 

•C 

43 

.22 

c 

•s § 

Ol 03 

03 

be 4 ; 
G3 G 
.3 O 

O fa-4 

j/3 O 


fa-4 03 
O .03 
G 03 ‘-fa 
O .« -03 

*43 -fa 

G ‘3 ”0 

3 C § 

CL • 

ftS 8 

o® 0 
°« o -fa 

*G >> fa 
t> 4-4 OG 

• »"H 

u 


^ fa 
fa 03 


-fa -G 

03 

fa 

1 

O 03 

G 

G 

03 

O 

O ^ 

0 *3 

O 03 

-G 

G 

03 

fa 

*0 ^ 

44 

a 

G 

1-4 

03 

en 

fa ^ 

03 

G 

04 fa 

X 

.2 

> 03 

03 

44 

O G3 

0\ 

O 

«fa 5 

Ph 

0) 

■-4 

O G 

4-> 

13 


TJ 

a 03 
5 W> 

, G 


22 O 
■O 03 

fa 

oT.2 


G 
G 

.22 G fa 

4-4 G 03 


fa 03 

G fa 
Cu a 
G 

C/2 


£4 

G 

03 


X 

V 


O 

H 


a 

< G 

^ n 
< 

03 

a ^ 

W CL 

m n 

& ^ 

n 

<1 

PL 


03 

fa 

'-P 

G 

03 


> 
o 
be 

fa 

O 

o “fa 

03 

K® -fa 
G 

®* % 
bC fa4 

a o 

-fa 43 

2 -fa 
G Q 

p > 


fa 

O 

G 

fa 

03 


K 

•< 

a 

t-4 

1 « 

P- 

a 

o 

a 

H 

< 

Q 


0) 44 

G 2 

a -2 

fab _- 

^3 
G G 
•fa G 
^ 
G 


~a 

G 

o 


G 

03 
fa « 

P *s 


>> 

fa 

G 

G 

fa 

-Q 

03 

P 


>> 
G 
T3 
G 
O • 

S- 


O 

1-4 

H 

<1 

H 


a 

H 

*< 

H 

C/2 


03 

03 

c n 


»G 

00 

1 

G 

l> 


- CO 

00 o 

►fa »fa 

03 | 


C3 

w cr 1 

44 03 
03 fa 

■^4 »3 

>> 03 

P <1 


03 

G o 

£P 

O 


1 

G 

i> 

00 

o 


-o 

03 

G3 

G 

03 

a 

G 


«b 

O 


03 

-o 

o 

p 


p •- 
- ^ 
- O 
00 


10 

I 

-O 

CO 

o 

►fa 

A 

00 

o 




03 03 

G ffa 


03 

dc£ 

















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


187 


i (j O 0) 

.£ . -Q 

*0 © t? d 4) 

•g ° © d 2 © 

g -a JS -= | 3 

O ~ _l . CU ®» j- 

*4J >> 13 W 

f« fl 2 £ 4J D 

fe •- a .9. 73 .9 


y 

y 

73 


a 

o 


§© 


d 


aS 


•H © E? ” nd 'ri 
S (U ed 3 i! cj 
-m a^c -Q ca a 


GO 

d 

73 

O 


GO 

>4 

53 

73 


<V 

CO fc-c 

•- o 
d *3 
.2 ^ 




C— 

d 

& 


■> CO 

> >4 

li 03 

\ ® >4 

3 S 
3 73 S 
3 S .3 

l «3 a 


•S$S 

co r " H 
y +-> 

® 33 c3 

> +-> 

_ o 

>4 M ^ 
-2 t *-' 
b 5 o 

& § 

O 8 © 


73 ?> 

C3 4_l 

d • 

O ^ S 

■ i • •—< 

d © 
43 *J C 

•y O d 
o3 -*-> o 
-y a 
" o “ 

9ga 


d -d 
•- o 
cS 

CO a, 

- S 

O •'- 

r* CO 
-t-> 
>4 § 

+J 5 
*3 " y 

5 « 

Mh t_ 

a 


•a o >» 

© 4-> *J 

CO bS g 

•43 ®» 
d 73 —■ 
d d d 
O § -g .2 

° ^ -S £ 

cu .2 .2 

j 2 H *+* 73 

73 -*-> o w 

4 “ > co 


9 © 9 


H|M 73 




o o o 9 


d 

y 


> _2 > 


<3* 


d 

~ bO y 

D O' -u 
«*-i _r! O O 
O i h > 


fHl'# © 

d 

d >» 

"" «+-i 

y o 

a * 

>• o 

, d 

£>© 
Th y 
d fe 

a ^ 

«4_ « 

o-£ 

50 


>> d co 

d o © 

3 -M „Q 

O d 

§ ^ co 

a >*■» 

fc- b? ■£ 

o d 

o « s 
rH o O 

^ u 
O (H 

,ot" 


Zfl 


GQ 


-a co ‘ 


o 

a i 


<y 

-M 

o 

> 


h 

03 

a 

«*-. -fr^ 

° d 

o 

_ y 

° 2 

*—i a 




d 

o 


g 

a 

o 


CO 

Sh 

0> 

o 

o 

y 

a- 

03 


CO 

u* 

O 

-*-» 

c3 

C3 

co 

c/5 


55 & 


co 

O 

-4-> 

O 

JJ 

"5 


cd 

• i-^ 

4-> 

d 

y 

-d 

’co 

y 

c_ 

&H 


CO 

t-i 

y 

y 

ffi 

o 


y 

- 

d 

CO 

‘5b 

y 


CO 

t-< 

y 

^5 


CO 

u 

y 

y 

m 


co 

t-t 

50 2 


y 


& y 


y 

d 


y 

© 


3 & a 

.22 § y 


.2 "o a 

•M >j"-d 
CO CO 

© d F 


cu2 


y 

S a 

c a 

d ° 

o ° 
U 


u 

o 

o3 

d 

y 

CO 


d 

y 

a 

CO 

co 


g *» 


co 

tH 

S 8 
2© 
o 


C 

y 

y 

© 

o 


C0 

u> 

y 

y 

© 

o 


«s ras 

P U £ m 


*3 © 
© ° 
y nd 

9 ^ 


CO 

(h 

0> 

O 

© 

o 


U 


CO 

.£! 

’-2 

Pi 

CX 


c^3 

O 

•4^ 

CO 

0) 

• H 

©H 

a 


o3 


u 
O 

O 

-*-> u 
O 

H-i d 

o 


co 

t-i 

O 


5 y 
_ > © 
^ 9 _ 

%£ 1 

.5 "d 

| 2 *g 

U > a 


i ^ 

o a 
>» a 

JS i 

^5 P5 
| 8 
H S 


CO 

^ 22 
y* d 

Ed bC 


O 

O 


C> r ° 
^ d 


d 73 

.2 ^ 
43 O 
cS y 
© y 

d co 

a 

O -n 

a d 

y o3 

t- 

a © 

w co 

t- «- 

o ta 


& 

d 

.2 

’35 

CO 

1 

a .a 

o .-2 

y y 

« 73 
CO flj 

co y 
c3 d 

y y 


y 'O 

y g 
"J y 
^5 

y a 

«g a 
% © 
73 
O 

© O 
73 

§ g 

S-S 


CO 

aS 

y 


>4 y 

d > r / 

73 O u 

co M l) 

y y 
d ^ © 

H,2c 

!§ >,y 

fi S3 

C7 d CO 


73 73 
d d 
cS o3 

co 

73 ^ 

© y 
« « 

? © 

o 


cc 


d w p 


y 
g 

d «*- 

43 o 
o3 

03 ^4 

ff-iJ 

CO P-4 

© 2 

O - 3 


a 
© 
y . 
o 

t- 

aS 

a 


o3 

a 


co H 
y -d 

a 8 

a^ 


y 

y 

-Q 


y 


d 

y 

a 

CO 

8 

&D 

d 

o 

y 


CO 

u. 

O 


a § 

2 y 

C/2 co 


co 

d 

CO 

d 

aS 


»o 

© 

U 

od 

o 

03 

H 

co 

is 

«s 


co 

PE 

d 

P 


s 

rO 5© 
00 


■ts 
y • 

'§© 
y CJ 


a 

d 

CO 

d 


03 

o 

03 


CO 

> 

#4 

© 

CO 

CO 

.. 

od 

4© 

P 

rs 

CO 


c3 

t- 

o 

U 

cS 

k 

■w 

o 

CO 

00 


i—^ 


hJ 

• #4 

O) 

»4 

t- 

|m4 


C3 

© 

rH 

© 

AC 

rH 



f-H 

03 

o 

03 

of 

03 

© 

l> 

© 

o 

r-H 

y 

y 


r-< 

© 

© 

r-H 

CO 

£ 

GC 

H 

r\ 

CC 

H 

© 

t-H 

© 

r-H 

r-H 

O 

4© 

c/2 

• «4 

AC 


u 

rs 

r. 

d 

© 

4^«/ 

t- 

H 

CJ 

u 

rH 

CO 

CO 

r-H 

CO 


oo 

ICO 

• #4 


o 

1-H 



• 

HO 

r”H 

H 

H 

CO 




p 


co 

Oi 

o 

r—• 

AC 

03 

O 


‘4/ 



J-H 

H 

(X 

H 

r-H 

r-H 

J 

O 













Mandatory Primary— Continued 


188 


The Annals of the American Academy 


tH 

3 

£ 

H 

Q 

a 

H 

•< 

£ 

M 

a 

o 

£ 

a 

PS 

<3 

® 

a 

H 

Q 

►H 

Q 

£ 

p 

« 

o 

►H 

S3 

£ 

PS 

O 

a 

® 
a 
u 
>—< 
E*< 

O 


a 

.2 

P 

2 

3 


a 
3 

Q 


II 


~ £ 5? 


4 

© €8 

Q X 

*3 "2 
9 § 
$ P 

U . 

flj) **-* 

£ © 


a 
o 


bo 

G 


Pm 


4) 

tt 

CO 

1*1 

3 

Q 


>> 

-s 

G 

o 


X 

.a 

■3 . 

§i 

*s ^ 
PQ.S 



o o 

*a «*1 


Si >> £ 

-3-S 8 

oofi 

CO S o 


CO 

G CO 

.2 fc 

•s a 

flj • «-H 

fi M 

M'S 

G 


O 

£ 


t-c 

0) 

-Q 

a 

G 

£ 


«+H Cl 

o o 
G 

vO a 

4) 

05 > 

o 

O bC 

■ 4_> a 

_ o 


X 

2 

• M 

3 

cr 1 

2 

G 

O 

£ 


1*1 

Si 

O 

MM 

3 

X 

G 

cS 

§ 


to 

CO Jjj 

£ 8 

CG ® 
S3 o 

° 4 

G £0 

£ £5 
o x 
H > 


4) 

a 

O 

a 


CO 

*1 

O 

-a 

3 

G 


G 

4 

a g 


2 

a O 

O tn o 


£ 


8 1* © >> 
M* 4) o 
G 'So ■£ 3 
,• 0*^0 


m 


c3 

PQ 

« 4 -H 

O 

CO 

© 

o 

Sfi 

o 


CO 

u 

8 

£ 

O to ■_ 

w_ CO o 

l? ® « G 
G b£ W) co 

O ’f O O 

U^UQ 


x o 

Si M-> 

*2 g « . 

O 3 O iG , 

£ £K & 
8 .S < 
§ g<a 3 s 

a * 


© o k; 
5 s 3 X 

g -a a 


bfi O 

4 cj 


G 

© 13 

•H G 

CO 3 

.a 2 

a < 

S e 

8 I 

t-s 

© t 


G 
3 

_ O 

S p 


3 

o 


3 

> 


a 
a 
n 
< 
o 

a 

a 
a 

Pm 


O 

H 

tfi 

a 


Si 

O 

d 

4 

-a 

O 

> 




bd 

G 


4) 

a 

O 

a 

a 

O 

o> 

O 4 J 


a 

> 

O 

bfi^- 

G 

a 

G 3 

4 

m3 X 

> 

2 2 
e *- 
P O 

O 

be 


PS 

Mj 

a 

i—< 

3 

Pm 

a 

o 

a 

H 

Mi 


3 

‘o 

X 

3 


_o 

'a 

-*-> 

.CO 

X 

•n 

© 

-UJ 

c 3 

4 -J 

CO 


I O 

!© ^ ^ 

a o g 

G 4-> o 

X ® J 
G . 4) 
3 m 4) 
a a 

3 8,2 

3 ffl £ 

GO 
O « 
a i-i 1*1 
3 3 3 

a &.X 


■Hii 


3 

> 


>» 

3 

X 


G 

O 


X G co' 

§, . J 3 .£ 
u 


k G 

3 o 


© 5 fi w 

Bo 3 


<v 

G 

3 

X 

.G 

3 

X 

o 

§ 

X 

a 


G 
3 
G= 
G ^ 

5 a 
-G v 

M-> 4 -> 

3 


.2 a 
X © 

5S C 

-*-> 
■3 -© 

o be 

’S 


4 > 

in x 

4 ) 

«n 3 
O • 

►J. 

■SI 

X 

rS - 
X (-( 
G 4 
4 JO 

£ S 
OG 


3 

? G 
£»"* a 
a 4 ; 3 
3 rv 4 
G. 2 T >» 
Kh 4 
O >4 — 

z © ja 

g «’■§ 

a-sj 

© • • ^M 

© Ui co 

fei g 

3 ■*-> Cl 


X G 
"o 

iG 


>> 
3 
X 

r? 4 
3 a 


4 

a 

O 

a 


w 

,H 3 r, a 
w G “ 3 

b © ^ pq 

aS 2 a 
G \r* O 

• r-r, 

ta _i_i hh 


£X co 

1-4 

G « 

4 

-a c 

^ O 


jj cL 


fc 

o 

HH 

H 

m! 

H 


Q 

a 

H 

< 

H 

CO 


id ^ 

ua 

i 3 
coo, 

05 ,i 

CM H 

w 2? 


t- 

05 


4 JO 

• S © 05 
3 Pm i> 


0.2 
to X 

®1 G 
CO P, 

CO 

-g' >> 

© £ 
#» 
to 

05 a; 

c-m -3 

£ 2 

£ 1 


o o 
«5 . 

^ -G 

. U 

M 3 •» 
(J oo 

1 2 
05 ^ 

i—I * 

05 in 

a 

Pm 

co ^ 

£ 2 


l> 

CO 

t- 


M 3 

© 


00 
O 
05 
no i-m 

J g 

T? J 

3 1—3 


05 co 


3 iG 
Q y 


w 

is 

3 

t-J 

3 

O 

40 


4 

c£ 


4 

4 

C/2 


05 

r-H 

05 


is 

3 


Mj< • - 
H 3 
05 O 
1-H CO 

CO 

is 

3 


4 

c£ 


_d 05 
G ■<* 
U 05 


X 

CO 

a 

X 

G 

3 

05 


M3 

P 


^ 1 

Mf ™ 

i HM 
a 

40 .i 
05 

* t~" 
3 i> 
O 

40 i 
c- 1 05 

• 5> 

6 

Is 

3 t- 


OT 

3 

mP 


05 

05 

05 


-f 
00 

^.s 

■«J( I-M 
MM 

M3 

AW 
* *> 
O 40 
05 mm 
05 05 

























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


189 


a 

•a® S® 

o °£ 2 
a 

U~I "*z . 

0^5 O 
w a — 

> 1:3 
<D u 
co o 


H-» 

8 

«a 


p- 

o 


■£ a -a 

4 o © 3 

cj 


1 • 

8 § 

g d 

o .is 

3® 

«Q 

•» 

CO 

b.2 

C3 +J 

*S*s 

d « 
H *13 


•r* 1 

a Sf? 

.2 s 

o *0 

4 4) 

'S 

d 
a) d 
fa o 
.0 a 
*« « 

Si co 

-© r 

CO 

a . 

►» £ >» 
s o 0 ! 
d -S d 


CO 

« 

4) 


-d 

4 

d 

4 


4 P- 
*j <y 

■3-3 

co © 


-d +e 

« § 


3 


. a 


*H 

o 


c 

Lh 


2 

4 


9 0 

> *0 
©< 

© g 

°.i 


d 

•2 n 

tO O 


ro 

P- 


r Ph 

12 0 

88-S 

® ® 3 

00 ? 


"gd 
g 8 

PH 4) 

u 

a 

© ^ 

to 

« -o 

-a <8 

4 -3 

4 rg 
4 C" 1 
X 

« A 

H-> 

o *HH 

-P C£3 


d 

O. 4) 

« -d 

4 _j_> 

X 

4) - 

co 
d 

x-2 

d « 

,§ "4 

t_i 

•s 

bC 4 
d d- 
.-h co 


I 1 CO 

£ •- ►» 


S 


Ph -M 
O co 
rjj c3 

Hn ^ 


>> 

d 

*© , - 

co d 22 

4) - ' H 

d 

H 


c3 

.1 £ 

p- -2 


-a bc^ 

§ 

8 g S 

to O .25 


>. d 

pH 

3 co 

d p- 

.5 4> 

Ph W 

o 

4 

o 3 

3 3 

A CO 


co" © 
PH © 
4 ) 1 -H 

"o ^ 

O 4 

—« d 
d « 

co o 

Ph A 

4) 


CO 3 
CO M 

a> 2 

>— rd 


■g 2 

d o 


„ o 
2 > 
4) o 

50 ‘2 
o P 3 
0 4 


d 

d 

A 


CO 

CO 

41 


O 

> 

© 

© 

© 


CO 

u 

4J 

d 

.bp 

* M 

©< 


2 o 

-d d 

- S 

CO *d 

t-l 

<u d 

d 

O r* 

> ’X3 


r-< C3 
*H 

^ C_I 

s o 

^ «+1 

• - *-l 

© Qj 
2 12 
°- .SP 

rH "co 


O 

d 

-M 

d 

d5 


d3 

■tJ 

X 

• H 

CO 

nd 

4 


o i 

•d 4) 

x “« 

CO 

d .2 

a | 

•c 0 

a 50 

g « 
o 0 


«d $d 


CO 

d 

if 

o . 

3 >> 

£*tj 

-3 co 

“ tH 

to 3 

d 

3 H 

4) 


CO 

C- © 

4> »* 


4> 

d 3 

“ CO 


O k! T3 

^ 2 
o 

C 4J 

O to 


cj 

a 

*<-1 

o 

O 

+J 

©* 

a 4 ; 
o -H 

r U ° 


>» A >i 

Sh rH 

S* 2 i 

V 

O ^3d 
d 
<d 




4> 


4) 

• 

• 3 co 

•+J ^ 

c3 4i 
' O 


^ O g® 

^ co O 


CO 

Eh 

CO o 

P O 


® 


. - 4J 
O > 
4» "Z> 
•% 4> 
d 41 
*■ ■< 
co 4 


<3 <3 


a.2 

o d 

c3 *_2 

*+H rj 

O § 

2 - 

O <3- 

•13'd 

CO 

d ^ 
© ° 
4) 

A 5P 

H •£ 


A •© 
• d c 

a d 

2 a 

d > 

* o 

CO 

• ^ 

d g 

a 4 


1 1 1 

4 s 4 

o'd 


»-l 

© a 

4 -o 
_d 4 


4 

a 

c5 o 
° 

ph CO 

I? 

4 3 


d 

a 


to *3 

>^3 d 

P d i) 

4 tJD > 


4) co 
4 4 

d *J3 

(1) • 33 

1+-- 

S3 . 
& 

d 

4 w 

•d 33 

4) 

3 CO 
^ S-i 

pH 

4 ^ 

pH 

J3 g 

4 =d 


| g 


d 

4 

«H 

4 


o ^ 
d 

CO 

O ii 


4 

pH 


^ d 

4 

2 d 

b 8 d H 

- 12 -g 4 d 


c3 

a 


o S"3 

> .5 A 


(h 

o 
d 

pH 

4 
> 
o 

0 2 
a d 

d 3 

5 g d 

*2 . co 

g ^ '5c 

•S* • <v 

O J P hJ 


aj O 

• 33 

.■ti © 
u © 
d *> 


4 


Ph 

o 

d 

Ph 

4 

> 

O 


CO 

Ph 

o 


co 

Ph 

4 

4 

® 

o 


d 

d 

-d 


CO 
. CO 

4 


1 

Ph 

4 

«-H 

4 

Ph 

d 

>> 

.. 

3 > 

% | 
p- d 

©-o 

9* d 
d 4 




4 Ph 
Ph 4 

'■Sf 

4 0 


d 

o 


Ph .'ii 

‘o 0 > 

4 "© 
b? 3 
W m « 

O 'S 

M *1-3 

000 

D 3 > D- 


O 

4 

H-> 

o 

> 

t*H 

O 

© 

hH 

bC 

d 


3 4 
co h-j 
C 3 d 

CO 


u 


>» w 
d fa 
-n O 
5o t *-* 

d « 

H-2 
hJ 

■33 4 

'Sc g "d 
W.2H. 


A ^ co 

• *h eg q,) 

4 33. g 

5 

«*- d 4_> 
8 

d _ l_J 
-d "g M 

52 

4 o 
d 4 « 

H % 

-d o 

t- -*-> 


CO fa 
4 O 


•d CO 

S^ 33 
d-H 

Ph -rt 

«© d 
^ o 
>—< o 
•r 4 

hj 

.2 3 

>5 d 
d 4 
-d "d 


4 >» 

4 >© 

«"2 

’d ^ 

2 « 
a.g 

CO 4-> 
4 *4 

o d 

>> a 

-2 - 2 
”d --> 


"ti ^ 

>> 
O d 
-d 

.Pi co © 

Ph 4 d 

2 -d d 
^H Ph CO 
ti d _ 
d © c 
o 

CO 

d 

4 
d 
d 
4 


O 

Ph 

d O 

a d 


d be 
•- d 

•d 

4 

4 


d 

•d 

co 

4 

d 

H 


4 

Ph 

a 


Ph 
4 
X! 

^ a 

d 4 

° d 
4 a 
4 4 
C/2 C/2 


22 >» 
d 03 
O ^c3 
‘•+3 to 

« « 

a; Q 

4 'g 


d 

Eh . ■» 

2 to 

d Ph 
4 

befe 


d i 

*C d 

3^ 
o H 

• H 

a. . 

^ § 

2 *-5 

S 2 


4 




Eh 4-» 

2 

d pa 

0 8 
O "X3 


tH C 

o .d 

• 33 

is 2 

O- O 

• 33 

d ^ 
•d 4 



3 



Tfl 

© 

3 

co 

© 

rH 

rH 

rH 

OP 

rH 

© 

© 

H 


© 

3H 



rH 

H-t 

4 

o> 

4H 

4 

© 

r3 

CO 

O 

rH 

CO 

O 

rH 

CO 

+H 

4 

3 

H-> 

4 


CO 



<3 

<3 

if 

if 

* 

3 

< 


is 

GO 




d 

d 

c3 

CO 


to 

d 

»o 


3 

rH 

•» 

G 

M 


CO 

r- 

CO 

4-> 


-d 


co 

0 




& 

rH 



a 


X 

C5 

d 

O 

oT 

O 

3 

dS 

'd 

Ph 

d 

d 

d 

I-H 

CO 

rH 

to 

4 

d 

d 

© 

H* 

0 

rH 

X 

w 

rH 

CO 

4 

d 

CO 

CO 

d 

4 

d 

4 

O 

*0 

A 

U 

bC 

A 

4 

• 33 

if 

d 

G 

£ 

o3 

4 

a 

d 

H-> 

4 

<3 

4-> 

O 

< 

to 

rH 















Mandatory Primary— Continued 


190 


The Annals of the American Academy 


N 

« 

s 

M 

Ph 

EH 

-< 

Q 

W 

EH 

<5 

►H 

S 

O 

£ 

sj 

K 

<3 

tc 

S3 

Eh 

hJ 

Q 

hh 

Q 

£ 

< 

cj 

2 

u 

HH 

X 

£ 

OS 

o 

CC 

w 

Q 

HH 

^H 

fc| 

o 


2 

.2 

ft 

«3 

t- 

13 

4) 

Q 

13 

a 

o 

to 

s- 

4 

Pin 


4) 

ft 

ce 

Q 

4 

ft 

cS 

d 

• *ft 

d 

£3 

cj 

CJ 


^ **■» 

© 5 

1 .§ 


bo 


4 

t- 

o 

ft 

4 


•jH W 

s £ 

c^—< c3 

° Q 


CO 

>h 

cS 

"0 

O 

©* 

I 

*o 


CO 

CO 

io, 

>> 

a 

cj 

d 

d 

0 

0 

ft 

ft 


co __ s 

£3 co 

O *- 
.3! 4 

1.5 

ft * 

l * 8 

ft 

oj 

£3 


ft 

a> 

S2 


O 

£ 


33 

£ 


©< 

d 

£3 

ci 


CO 

d 

-2 

ca 


J C3 

g "S 

2 g 

•ft £ 

a 5 


4) 

ft 

O 

•ft 

4 

-Q 


CO 

>s 

cj 

d 


CO 

Js 
cj O 
d i—i 


£3 

O 

ft 

o 

J4 

13 


CO 

.2 

ft 

33 

33 

O 

O 

ft 

O 

co 

4> 


d 

£3 

cj 

4 


o 

o 

o 

© 

*o 

©* 


-2 i 

S£3 4 

ft 

>».s • 

13 2 

i ft o 

4 O ft 

Scf 

o 


- 

2 


cj 

4 

ft 

O 

> 


ci 

ft 

o 


4 *- 

4> 

£3 > 

ft O 


co O 
4 4 
ft -F) 
03 

03 ci 


03 33 

03 


£3 

O 


£3 

O 

• »ft 

4- > 

4 

ju 

13 


o g 

4 

^ £ 

ft be 


co 

o3 

4 

4 

ft 

O 

> . 

8.1 

•rj ? - 

^ H-> 

M to 

« pg 

*0 4 

-33 

*© .2 


4 

o 

> 


4 

ft 


33 

4 


ft 

O 


£3 

33 

O 

4 


H-> 

CO 


ci 

4 


>j O 
ft »© 
ci 

£3 £3 • 

,S cj O 

ft 03 O 
a h-j fti 

CO pH 

S 

.£ ft ^ 

■£ g £ 
^ H o 
2* ft £3 

xS ® 

2 s o 

Z -Q £3 


4 

4 bo 

2 'S ® 

4 . 2 ,®* 

& p ■*■* 

3 4ft 

© § 

•g ^ 4 


co p 

4 ft ft 

b 0 fa *ft 
-TH £3 ft 
2 o M 

p 3 r > IbC 

hs CJ d 


h*S 

ft 

o 

ft 

ci 

d 

£3 

03 


co 

4 


co ft 

ft £3 _ 

0 ) .ft O 

2^2 
ft o 


m 

o 


.2 1 

ft 


ft 

4 P 


ft 

4 


t/J 


>» > 
ft O 


Q U 


4 pQ 
bp 4 

-2 o 

=3 o 
’> P 

ft 

T3 ^ 

H * rj ft 
^ 

4 bt 9 ft 
£ T3 •" 

g 3.S-® 

4 'ft -S 4 
ft ft 2 4 
bo £3 g ig . 

■ 4 o 3 

ft ft O ft, g 

u 


£3 « ^ 
o .2 o 
U O H 


C/5 

U 

a? 

o 

© 

o 


ft £3 


co 

4 

4 

m 

o 

4 

ft 

c3 

ft 

ai 


T3 

# £3 

ft 4 
O W 

_ 50 

C3 O 
O 4 

• • >—H 

CO ft 
CO ft 
4 co 

bcO 
£3 ft 

O c3 
U *4 


ft 

O 

4 


ft 
• ^ 

bo — 

4 c3 

—' Cu 

•> *4 
>i*d 
ft £3 

c 2 

£ a 


£3 

£3 

O 

4 


co 

4 


co 

ft 

O 

ft 

c3 

£3 

4 

co 


£3 

4 

c3 £p 

bC £3 

Ji g <ri 

Q ts 


4 

0 

4 

ft 

a, 

3 

m 


co 2 
4 g 
bO O 

-a O 

3 


n 

4 

►h 

w 

hi 

£Q 
<3 
O 

ft 

hi 

&H 

Ph 

g<3 

K 

h3 

Ph 


o 

Eh 

CO 

W 


c3 U3 
ft 03 
O £3 
e3 
4 

O % 

AO " 

bo X 
£3 03 
3£= 4 

? o 

Oh > 


be 
£3 

"S 

4 
4 
4 
ft 

O 

ft 
CO 

ft 

ft 
e3 

co • 

£ o 
ts 

"O 4 


£3 

O 


5h 

C3 

■< 

S 

M 

02 

PH 

pH 

o 

S3 

Eh 

<3 

Q 


ft 

o 


4 ' 

ft £3 

03 4 

bO > 

3^- ft Ph 

ft "1 O 
A-c (j 

.2 § 


>>o 4 
H 53 £ 

=3 .2 

s £3 
o3 9 
ft Ji 

P< ft 4 


c3 
£3 
ft O 

>» £3 ’iS 
© c3 
'd ^ 

£3 *3 

O 4 

S & 2 


ft 1/2 

2 CO 
4 _2 
4 

O. ft 

C/2 O 
£3 


ft 

O 

' >-H 

I- 

a 


>» 

O 4 ) os 

ft _£3 "d 


4 ' 

5 4 
5 4 

H-s 4 ^ 

.0 "3 4 

>» « ^ 
o3 £3 
4 £3 

fl 

,9 bo 4 

S .0 

-3 "d 

T 4 . 

.9 4 fl 

=« g o 

H c-ft 


£3 -d 

2 fl 

ft ej 
4 
4 

4 £ 


03 *> 
• ^ 

4 2 
Oh 4 

C/2 ft 


ft 

■ 7! **h 
4 o 

bO r - 
ft co 
.2 4 

'd ft 

4) .ft 

4 4 
4 

a.5 


CO 

CO 

eS 


-d 

£3 

O 

4 

4 

co 


4 

ft 

c3 

co 

4 

c3 

B 

a 


c3 ft 
*4 O 

4 53 

c*) . ^—5 

co -T 3 
4 £3 

ft O 

ft 4 
4 

8 «2 

=2 

4 C3 
-O O 
co ft 

>» K 
^ J 2 
*d 4 


= 4 2 

.2 ««fl 

£3 -2 **h 
£3 2 0 

• ft p to 

-O £3 4 


>»-d 
c 3 "d 

S ° 

.2 Jx 

>>** 
«3 ft 

X3 .5 


ft w 

5 2 

4 ft 
>1 4 


o 

ft 

Eh 

■< 

Eh 

ft 

CJ 

Q 

!? 

<3 

S3 

Eh 

Hi 

EH 

C/2 


CO - 

fe 


<3H X OI 
ft l> M 05 
» CO ^ 00 


I 

h-3 


o 
o 

- o 

■g ® +J 

«H! -S^ tJ 
g f--ft ..ft 

j ft 2 8 « 

in 0 ® 

H N H CH pH 

»l • • • 

rC hjh co ftH 

Oi (O? co ^ OI 

o®.' a 

ft ft H M pH H 


©I 

T —i 

.- 03 


00 


CO 

a3 

hP 


.2 P5 

a 


g 

d 
o> 

2 

oj 


S£3 03 4 

CJCJc^ 

- 2 

w 

^ CO 
c3 ^ £0 
j Cfi ft 
-hJ of 
©< o 

2 03 ’“1 
£d C30 CO 
w GO i> 


co co 
^ S3 
c3 c3 

J h-3 

’d 03 
4 GO 


^ w to 

^ I ^ 

i hP 




d 

2 

4 

2 

c3 


CO 

J3 

u 


« co 

t- — 
ft 03 

©i ft 


P3 

CO ^4 
2 d 

Hfl c 

• 2 
-fl 2 
cj § 

r» 

CO „ 

rH 

o cc 


vi vi 
!? 

Cw cj cj 

ftP ftP h3 

• ~ . #x •» 

SS«S 

©« CO 

,£3 -fl p 2 „2 

6 u ^ S 

r\ r\ r\ 

t— 03 ©( CO 
O O ft ft 
03 03 03 03 


fe 4 
c« ©< C/2 

•^§5 

• «i v * 

©I 
«3 


^ CO 
CO 


^ ^ 03 

* *—H 

«3 . 

• -2 

9n co 

U ^ 4 

•s #\ ^ 

03 ft 4j 
ft ©3 cj 
03 03 ft 
ft ft C/2 
















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


191 


03 

>» 

g 


o 

© 


■*-> cn c 

03 03 2 

oj D 2 

y -G 


« o 
o fl 


2 

o 


51 § 

o .2 g 
-5 o 

° -3 a © 

lv? CS o 

^ fl rS 


O G 

£ Oh 

o --5 

4-t '3 
.2 3 

£ a 

05 

"O 'O 

*0 « w 

•P 

<» 0 (h 

0 > -S 3 
W) c 3 o 


C co 

. r*S CO 

C 3 

«T V 

-© 
o a 

g® 8 

g 0 S 

£ ~ 
o o $ 

■ ►,.& s 

- y cj 


G 


.2 s '3 

of O t 5 £ 

J U ? - 


ya y 


g 2 t| 

2 g g *G 

I® |.2 

50 ® o ? £ 

0 .s 4J a 

a; ?h £ d o3 

2.2 O o 0 

®QUU 


g 

y 


tn 

h 

y 
y 

£ffl 

o o 


G -M —h 

5 2 2 ^ 

tn G Oh ^ 
y ys tj 
^ tn .0 o 

g Jb 

3 G 


y 

be y 
y ’2^ 
3 

£ 


G 3 G 
G "" 
G 


u 

G 

O 

Q 


513 „ 
c c/2 

O • L_ CO 

U & g 


>» 

u 

y 

y 

G 

G 

-G 


Ch 

G 

O 

U 


y 

a 

y 

tn 

Oh 

G 


cn 

Sh 

y 

y 

m 

o 

y 

y 

G 


tn 

y 

£ 

‘■+3 

G 

-M 

G 

y 

i 

y 

tn 


U U rn 


72 P3 


tn 
S 
y 

G 

O-qj 

y w 


tn 

"os 
y tn 
Oh 4> 


tn 

t- 

O 

■y 

a 


cn 

y 

y 

G 

be 

y 

'y 

"O 


o 

© 

© 

r\ 

«5 

i> 


tn 

(-H 

y 

y 

o 


CO 

>,.3 


u 

G 

O 

u 


be 


• G y O 

U H -2 U 


G 

G 

O 

y 


© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

Ob 


tn 

y 


w 

G 

rt 

U 

y 

> 

o 

u 

o 


fcH 

o 

© 

© 

© 

rv 

© 

© 


S 3 


© o 
© 

© tn 

*■> rtj 

>»§ .ti 

*j 1—1 y 


” 5 
■g g 
^ t, 

*0 p, 

^ § 

CO t© 

bC^ 

G 


y 

Gci 

P .2 


■M 4) 

tn ^ 
cS w _ 

U > 


tn 

Sh 

©3 


G 

y 

y 

£ 

.m 

y 

PQ 


03 

4h 

s 


■g S3 50 

MS .. 
G fcf-C 

^ - § 

•s b g 

G^ 

ri 

too 


1 1 

• r 1 co 

a Sb 
*j c 
co o 


& 


ti M 
y ^h 


G 

y — 

4 J T 3 

y 


a g 


T 3 

G 

eS 


y 


y 

y * 
©”y 


cS 

03 

y 


P*H 


>J 


4) CS 

I a 


G « 
0 

b ^CJ 

1^1 

•r 1 co o 

v o 

Oh 3 y 

H C/2 

3 "G 

G ,2; 03 

.2 M S 

w -P M 


03 --h 

G 

y Oh 

A) hh-H 
> 0 

«'g 

bS 

cS 

a • 

.G H-H 

Ph 03 

© *1 
J 7 «G 

G s-i 

g y 

o £ 

"03 cS 


53 .1 
tj *y 

"y "3 

-G G 

« a 

G 

G J 2 

03 

y y 

•r x ■ 

cS SO 

a § 

•n J 

Oh 4-h 


y cs c« 

y h—h t- 

ti ■£ «3 
S O h 

g c y 

G Gr! G 
O 2 tn 

y >» 

2 g 

-O -13 

y o 

■a g § 

y o ^ 
y y r 
x y y 
y C/2 4 -j 


4-h 03 

O tn 

y 


G 5 

< S3 

o a. 

>j 3 "c 03 

*© G o o 

$ g V ©. 

Gy 

hS ^ 

‘ rt 03 

M 4P Ph t-c 

^ 03 cs y 
•» g y > 

^ M >, O 


1 y 

; , S-< 

Gh 3 
_, y 
2 G 2 

2 cn 
33 >> 

go 

© ^ 

CO tn 

y 

G *C 
G G 
-G G 


CO 

'C 

a 

G 

G 

O 


1 

G 

O 

y 

>» 

G 

G 


o y 
« o 
^ y g 

G-° § 

43 tn ' J 

G >> G 
y G y 
bo 'TG > 


^ - 03 
{" > 
»-p 

© 


QO 

rft 


CO CO G © 
CO © 


© 


_• Oh 
Oh 

& CO 

tfi ? 2 
*0 . 
1—• 52 
co 50 
© 


M A S 
CJO © 


oa Oi 


co 


CO 

CO 


»o y J 
CO C/2 W 


X © 
© 

• — © © 
OhpH H 
Oh 

•03 W M 

.2 ^ £ 
03 cS G 

.2 h -3 ^3 


03 

£ 

G 

• #\ 
© 
© 
©t 


y 

. ~o 

G O 

h 5 U 


O rH 
*C © 


© 

-t 


-f 

© 

cc 

CO 
© 

-d §j 

U 72 


© 

© 

X 

*0 

y 

y 

C/2 

#s 

© 

© 

© 

• F -4 

.1 


03 

f£ 

CO 

g 

X 

Oh 

#\ 

Wb 

x" 

r-H 

r-H 

0^ 

C/2 

© 

G 

hJ 

c3 

o< 


© 

r-H 

O 

r-H 

0 

r-H 


© 

©« 

T3 

• #» 

© 

of 

i> 

r-H 

O 

cn 

CO 

£ 

CO 

£ 

© 

*© 

1 

y 

X 

©< 

r-H 

K 

G 

cj 

i> 

©^ 

T3 

r-* 

X 

1 

di 


G 

h-3 


X 

© 

X 

c 

y 

3 

© 

©< 

X 

© 

CO 

£ 

h4 

• #\ 

>0 

X 


”0 

G 

y 

G 

• #» 

Oh 

Oh 

•J 

© 

-r 

©< 

l 

©< 

©^ 

X 

r> 

»o 

G 

X 

c^ 

r» 

X 

Qi 

i> 

• r» 

X 

X 

© 

— rv 

© 

X 

r-H 

r-H 

X 

©< 

©< 

X 

WJ 

r-H 

©l 

O 

O 

© 


• 

• 

• 

o> 

© 

r-H 

r-H 

©< 

©> 

Oh 

Oh 

Oh 

r-H 















Mandatory Primary— Continued 


192 


The Annals of the American Academy 


3 

3 

s 

m 

« 

Ph 

H 

< 

Q 

« 

H 

£ 

4H 

a 

o 

z 

w 

<5 

cfi 

W 

H 

<5 

Q 

H-< 

Q 

2 

u 

W 

o 

M 

a 

£ 

« 

o 

& 

CE 

W 

u 

&4 

u* 

O 


a 

o 
• ** 
4-> 

o3 

T5 

a; 

Q 

a 

o 

M 

Ph 

0) 


a; 

+-> 

o3 

Q 

y 

pH 

a 

X 

x 

a 

3 

U 


(L, H** 

45 *2 
1| 
Z^ 

I a; 
JL o 
y 

£ £ 

<4-4 05 

° Q 


co ,_ s 

a -o 

o *-■ 

• a y 

•s & 

flj • 

£ Cfi 

wj*S 

a 


a 

.S 

's 

o 

z 


Pi 

OJ 

,0 


3 

z 


>5 

P 

o 

PH 

a 

X 

a 

a 


a o 
o 


a 


tn 

a 


fH • r-H 

.5 be 

g js 

a •*-> 

co 

a *- 

y ca 

-a 


4) 

pH 

a 


*3 

JU 

• H 

Ph 


a 
o 

1 *—1 '■■■' 

4-) 3 

»*-i Jr. 

4-> ^ 

^ .Ju 
d "y 


w 

>» 

a 

x 

o 

co 


>5 be • 

13 .£ - a 

a x! 


y 

y 

y 

X 

y 




X 

X 

a 

a 

4) 

ph 

5 


4*5 O 

a ®< 
a 

o 2 


o 

o 

*3 


4) 


to 

a 

4> 


p 

o 

«4-l 

o 

o 

© 


y 

X © 
a o 
a 

p 

.p 05 
y JJS 

'p *e 
•p o 


>4 « 

P 4*5 

o3 c3 

£ ^ 

'p »o 
d pH 

CO 

-x ~3 45 

£ a y 
o *iG 

*8 y 0 

_D •*-> i-H 

03 $ 

co co O 

^ *h Jh 

3.0.0 


o3 


*3 

a 

a 

as 

-p 

g 

o 


o 
. o 
a o 

03 a 
x a 
y -a 

45 pH 

a co 

w CO 

t) » O 
o -g % 

Z >Z 


X 

a 
a o 

PH 

® CO 

P h|h< P 
05 a 

a SP o 
a .£ > 
-a x p, 
•+■> y ^ 

co g 7. 

S X y 
as <u ^2 

PH 2 

4 ° O 3 

Z a a 


a3 
a o . 

-*-> CO 

* Lh 

O nh* nj 

*°x t 
I g > 

Cv 44_i 

■5 x 

-*-■ <u 


o 

p 

co o % 

S - ' D - 


o 

Z 


o 

a 


£ 

3 

a 


CO 

p 

45 

45 

«s 

o 


co 

P 

O 


a ffl 

<y o 


CO 

p 

CO 8 

S3 Jfi 

O 


CO 

p 

41 

45 


CO 

in 


a .2 

PtfiQ 


> 5 
o 2 

tea «m ui 

$£3 O 

?-go 

t§§ 

§ ^co" 
o .a ^ 
u u 


1 

3 

.■a a 

pH O 
co .3 

• <= -a 

o =i 


u 


4) 
> 
O C“ 
^ o 

co U 

a g 
be g 

4i _0 

"45 

Q 


co 

u. 

O 

O 

"S 


<£ 

-4-> 

a 
a 
x 
* 55 

45 

P 

Ph 


CO 

45 

45 

m 

o 

45 

PH 

a 

-P 

w 


CO 

45 

45 

&a 

o 


a 

3 

o 

4) 

X 

a 

a 


U 


CO 

CJ 03 

45 

m g 

o ® 


& 0 


CO 
45 

a 

- x ® 
-w g 0 
a .5 x 

> a p 
§ 2 £ 
h P ^ 


y 

dc! 

y 


a 

a 

CO 

• 

PH 

P 

a 

d 

1 

a 

o 

Z 


p 

3 

o 

y « 

a -s 

g *p 

& in 

3 * ^ 

(X! ^ 

«p «p 

O PH o 

co a co 
y 3 y 

be O t>C 

x LP 'a 

3 3 


w 

| a 

^ a 

o < 

►H 

g a 

S a 

a 

•< 

Ph 


CO 

y 

• 

■4— 

Ph 

C3 

04 


P« 


O 

^ a 

pH -p 
CO pj 

a e 3 
y 

p^ 05 

t; o 
<! > 


a 

H) 

a 

HH 

a 

Ph 

a 

o 

« 

H 

< 

Q 


£ £ 
y 

&1 


a 


a 


p a 

*2 .2 

05 ph 

J5 y 
y 

CO pp 

>4 4> 

a 

^ "3 
o £ 
l> y 


y ^ a 
3-qh 
y w a 
y y 

>4 r =* TJ 

•S H 'i 

y to ft 

fe a «4p 

. 2 h 1 o 
y . 

^ . a 

to M X 

!>> g ^ 
j, 2 p 
"3 43 O 


CO 

p 

a 

y 

4*5 


A X 
5 y 
^ 8 
*5 

— £ 

^5 g 
a a 

-3 A 

1/3 s 

3 > 
H 43 

x 

.a h-> 

-£ 3 

H & 


a _; 

-p © -p 

a 

43 - 

A3 c 
• ,— 


e 

y 

X 

"35 

y 

p 

Ph 


4*5 

a 
x 

CO 

y 

a H 

x 

_p 

3 


a 


a’ 


y 

a « 

S-< 

o 

CO <4-4 

y y 

"p 

a « 
£ -a 

•«—< flj 

fe y 

"a -r) 

y 3 
d y 

c/2 -a 


a 

-•3 

•j y 

• r-H flj 

u £ 
«4-H 

a> 

a ^ 
.2 =5 

•4-^ 1 —^ 

y y 

05 05 

"y i? 


O 

►p 

H 

< 

H 


Q 

hj 

w 

H 

<1 

H 

C/2 


a 

a 

a 

pH 

a 

o 

s 


<3* 

C5 


CO 

y 

x . 
o 

x£ 
a> go 
co 

J si 

Ph C« 


C35 

O 

G« 


»> • •> lO 4 . 

c -1 o • t~ 

r* o oi d i-h 

05 00 pH c/2 05 




• ^ 

co 

d 

• #v 

©5 

9\ 

00 

• * 



O 

rH 

O 

r-H 

pH 

05 

33 



05 


o< 

. 

1 1 

• 


c3 

rH 

d 

05 

d 


Ch 


Ad 

CO 

a 

CO 

4-> 

05 " 

0 

pH 

• M 

O 

#* 

338 

»N 

CO 

cr> 

g^5 

_o 

O 

05 

05 

05 

• 


pH 


y 

Z 


rl 5 < rH dCfi 1—1 




















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


193 


Cfl 

>0 

b 

-d 

o 

CO 


© c >>-d 

® ej is 2 

>3 cj C 


CO 

03 


h 

b 2 

2 8 

-p fe 
ft 

M _ 
co O 
^45 -M 

o •- 
£ a 


3 CO 

W CO 

hB B 


y 

P CO 
t> Cl 
4> « 
C/2 -d 


o 

y p 

P M 

O -o 

S d 

B 


O 

£ 


CO 

So, 

B 

-a 


CO 

s>> 
- 4 

-ft O ^ 

.■d 

!> <3* 

^ 03 ch 

-S C/2 -p 
^ co 
co 
U 


4< «P 

©* o 


p 

ft 


Ch 

.2 

’p 

ft 

CO 

^ CO 
-2 4) 
-d .« 

_ a 
CO S 


J. Pi 

© Ch 
4< Co 

«■ d 
co .5 
ft p 
% ft 
O y 

► s 

y *TH 
£ 0) 
O -ft 
a co 
H to, 

Ch eS 

O -d 
o o 

>H CO 


CO 


CO 

d> 


o 
o 

r-H 

O - 
O B © 
cc »o 

Ch" S p" 

o 3 o 

fi s -s 

V b£ B 
> B B 
O o o 
O P P 


o 

o> 


f “2 is 


CO 

Ch „ 
0) Ch 

O O 


5 a 


ft 
° d 
to 4) 

J_> CO 


*o 

p h 

S g 

g s 

£ y 
ft$fi 
2 © 


C/2 


O _ O 
OT3 O 
O P o 
_r es _r 


ft 


y y 


o 2 
P m 


B 
£ 
O 

C/2 H 


ft 


B 

y 

T2 

'co 

4 

Ch 


Ih 

O 

B 

Ch 

<0 

> 

o 


Ch 

O 

H—, 

ft 

B 

y 

CO 


PM O 


4> 

© "5 

§ S 

4 

CO 

4) 

S* 

• H 

-P Ch 

ft O 

4-> 

B aj 

0 ) <P 

« ft 
£ oc o 
ft-2 o 
ST a) c - * 

Q 


B 

4 

03 

B 

4 


I 

03 

B 

4> 


B 

O 


3 d 

bo’p _ 
03 ^ U 
d ft o 
•>-» b a 

►» 1/3 "d 

•P y 

9 ^ ^H 
5 5 ° 
P OT 


Ch 

0) 

ft 

3 

co 


C 

P 

4> 

H-> 

ft 

-p 

C/2 


co 


O 

3 .-d 

rj co 

i s as 

P P 3 


p 

o 

-p 

ft 

B 

4 

co 


B 

41 

a 

co . 
c/3 (12 

<P CO 


CO 

p 

O 

-p 

cd 

d 


St) 4) 
s "d 
o 

P P 'SI 


C/2 


co 

p 

0) 

o 

o 

4) 

H-, 

eS 

H—, 

C/2 


4> 

a 

8 

B & 

C-> ^ 

a ^ 

>3*g 

’o ° Of -M 4J 

-O V P y O 

B y B *hh .ph 

Q rH P 

U p rV P P 

C H? PC 


co 

& 8 

.p. r> 


co 

u 

03 co 
o P 

a § 

o ® 

So O 
B d 
3 ? 
o o 
U H 


co 

y 2 

® s 

o 

ft*+H 
• c-H O 

'd h2 

co y 
B ° 

< -P 

o g 
H cd 


CO 

p 

O 

4-> 

o 

13 


a 

• rH 

4-> 

B 

y 

03 

• l-H 

co 

y 

p 

P 


B 
y 

a g 

% 2 
02 • 

& g 

3 g § 

C/2 P P 


co 

p 

y 

y 

o 

y 




• 

P e3 


CO 


4) d 


03 


Bi o 


> 

• pM 


B *J3 


4-4 


B 


cd 

H4 

CO 

T3 55 

CO 

Sh 

o 

d 

03 

CO 

*H 

03 

03 

B y 
B ^ 

4-4 

c3 

03 

f-< 

53 

-p 

co O 

d 

0, 

O 

03 -H* 

03 

03 


4-4 (72 

co 


4_2 

B y 

03 

4-4 

H 

03 

4-4 

H 

d 

d 

be -p 
y B 

-7! d 


d .2 


cS 

*H 

CO 


B 

3 

a 


B 

O 

• ^ 
4-* 

B 

y 

> 

B 

O 


co 

u 
y 
od -p 
3 2 -P 

o b *d 

d a 


co 


a 


W5 V5 fN 

4P -M r X 

C/2 C/2 O 


y 

Q 


p A 

p -*-> O 
B 4) 
3 -h 
O ci 
y ft 


2 s> 

TT • i—< 

O -P 
cd 
-p 
•ft d 
O 03 

CO 
O ^ 

^ bf 


cd 

4-4 

O 


o 


ft co 

(U CO 

y 


p 

o 

B 

P 

o y 


wd 2 
a .9 


CO 

cd 

p 


p 
bfi 
B 
O 

3 P 

P B 

• rM 


W) 

.3 

o 

Ph 


> 

o 

U) 

p 

o 

SHH 

y 

H-J 

o 

> 


O d 

SS y 

O % 
r-t O 

be t> 

B 

3 y 
o ts 

CO 

.2 

ti 'g 

d -g 

P-( H-J 


CO 

p 

II 

a y 

p < 

o _ 

*p C3 


B 

O 


p 
y 

y 

t5 0 

y 

r-H « 4 H 

y O 


ft 

y 

C/2 


So 

c$ 

03 

co 

y 

3 

E~i p 

y 

4-> -Q 

CO HJ 

P B 


ft 

y 

c/2 


So B 
B B 

03 y 

co ’d 
y -ft 
3 

H 

•p 
CO 

.fa 
Pm 


So"° 

!0 y 

-h p 

o3 y 
-O 

a 

3 
fi 


ft eg to 

y p y 
C/2 y 3 

«« SH 


So 
03 y 


y 

bflrft 


03 

CO 

y 

3 


P 

O 

«HH 

y 

-ft 


p 

3 

O 

Pm 


p 

y 

-Q 

a 


y 

> 


rB 

4^ 

p 

y 

B 

.2 

y 

CO 

i 

-ft 

'-p 

y 

rB 

-P 

cd 

03 

3 

O 

Pm 

a 

y 

•p 

y 

jj 

'y 


CO 

03 

k-S 

B ^ 


•»H co 

a 53 
.3 [b 

>> B 
B y 
03 03 


I 

o 




©* 


• ft 

co 

t- 

05 

rH 



C /5 


# 

< 


ft 

B 


9s 

GO 

P 


r-H 

o 

rH 

-d 

'd 

B 

CO 

B 

n3 

£ 

y 

B 

cd 

a 

y 

H-J 

B 


_ I 

y oo 

co rH 

Z 

ft 

• #\ 

00 aT 
co 2 

« S 

rH 

^ CO • 

fe oo 

p 2 i> 
Ot H (X 


ft ft 


co 

co 03 
y r-4 Oi 

£ -d I H 

•b -2 s 

M 5® ? 

^ I 

S y j h-5 
®3 | ..,5 


CO .h p -B -B 
J S< ^!JP 

00 CO 

' ft »» 

• • -ft »o -f 

p -B n p -p 

P p u a a 

rH rH 

h-t h-t ccT 

Q O w. co co 

So 03 03 05 3 P 

g ^ ^ ^ P ^ 

CO CO CO 

^ £ jC oT 

> B B B 8 h 

I H-} h-J SJ co 


14 












Mandatory Primary— Continued 


194 


The Annals oe the American Academy 


« 

< 

a 

M 

Ph 

H 

<1 

Q 

H 

H 

£ 

M 

s 

o 

A 

w 

- 

< 

m 

W 

H 

< 

Q 

t—i 

Q 

£ 

u 

a 

o 


« 

o 

pH 

CO 

w 

u 

l-l 

&H 

o 


a 

o 


D l-i 

- d 


:: a ft 


a 

Q 


>> 

in 

a 


a.I 


- a £ 


o 

« 05 

•Q ft 

• *H 

ft ft 

I § 

d e *- 

Ph ° 


3 ^ 
Ph 

d 

A o 

d 

A pq 

s £ 

«+h cS 

° Q 


CO 

a 

o 


0) 

Ph 

be' 

fl 

ft 

o3 

a 

‘a 

jO 


cn 

t- 

d 

a 

be 

c/3 


u 

d 

ft 

a 

a 

£ 


r*> 

Ih 

o 

-M 

a 

ft 

a 

a 


i-i 

.2 

’Eh 

a 

in 

a 

ft 


in 

a 

d 


03 rH 
-D -i 

■+f a 

O Ct 

a ft 

a +■> 

a 

03 t-i 
03 


-a 

-H 
a £ 

a o 

» »-H 

a o 


Sr 

a 


03 

lH 

o 


03 03 

S-i ft 

w ij «2 "5 
a & 

2 ii J ^ "S 

a ft 03 03 03 

be a 03 ft a 

c/3 a £ Ph H 


Po, 

- 

a 


h|n 03 ^ 


o 

> 


03 
cn 
i- 
03 _ 

a o3 a 

O H-> lH 

— o " 

rn H 


03 

a 

0) 

be 


a o 
o 3 

03 pH +S 

in 

>>«« a 
H o o 

• ^4 

U 


*o 

<53 

r\ 

ft 
H 

a 
£ 
ft 

a 
a 

.2" 

A 

g § 

.2 | 

^ o 


u 

03 

-a 

a 

a 

a 


Oh 

03 

d 

X 

03 

CO 

u 

03 


a 


o 
X 
o 

-O 
Hr «3 

GO 03 


o S 

tj o 
a U 

3 *o 

..ft 

a 

•tJ a 
U ft 

«+H 

o K ° 

03 KH 

^ £ 
a£ 

1-5 Xa 


in ,a a 
c a 

o w a 
.2 l-i H-> 

cn 03 
cn 03 

&& 

O 


a *-< 
a 03 
o -a 


03 

lH 

o 

a 


o 

a 


—h 

a +-> 

C • i-H 

03 O Hr 

a o 

03 

O O cn 
o 03 

AO +J 


o T cn 

ft (W D 

O P-< . r=H 

ft 03 +J 

SS 0 

§° | 

o o Y 
O O -*-> 

*2. u 

r-H rH ya 


CO _H 

33 a 

bC 2 

a 

o a 

lH f-H 

o a 
as ft 
o 
ft 

a o 

53 § 
cn <d 
.2 

X3 03 


T3 I 

a g « 
53 o 

>J of 


a cn 
a 03 

ul 

O 


w 

-M 

• pH 

as 

a 

*a 

a 


cn a 
03 •£ 
in h ^ 
cn tie a 
a a - 

O O 


ri 

2 ° 

o »o 
as 03 


a 

ft o S 
a w 
8 o "a 

03 O H 

in *o a 
"a 

d.2 S 
o d .2 

lo 03 cn 


cn cn 
03 d 
03 • rj 

oSfio 

S 3 cn 
•» 3^. c3 

§ -g v 

jfi 2 'S 
o§2 

■C -a d 

cn h-> rx 

• h r >o 

a O ©3 


d 

• H 
- 


03 

• pH 

Sh 

4-* 

cn 

• ^4 

03 

A? 

A 

2 
d 

cn 
cn 03 

pn 

^ cn 
d 
03 

£ 
o 


o 

»o 


o 

«5 

03 


a i_ 
d o 

S 

3 a 

d d 
in cn 
be . 

a m 
o 


cn 

d 73 
> >- 
ft d 

•£ a 
=2 o 

"t" •pH 

a cn 
0) CO 

§ ‘a 

s | a 

S 8 8 

d d . 
>+->>» 
o a ft 


ft cn 

a d 

ft *H 

. ca 


ft 

43 2 


2 

cn g 


8 

ft 

a 


d 2 o 

5 d « «J 

a 03 ft «*-< 

ti crl 2 Oh-? 

a ft ft d a 

a ° a 03 g 

03 d d ‘j3 o 

_ a3 T3 co U 


CJ ft O m CJ <5 


c n 
u 

<l> 

o 

m 

o 

2 .2 co 

a t-< cn i-i 
03 h-J l-i d 
2 cn d o 

ft ft ,2 « 
a o ° d 

|p§^^ 

_w o ^ 

HccOm 


a 

u 

M 

a 


H 
a 
a 
4 

03 

HH 

a 
a 

- A 

h <3 
a 

<j 

Pu 


o 

H 

03 

W 


73 73 

a a ^ 
flj .—I o 

^ - 2 
a ^ 

bfi co §3 

a 2 


IH 

o 


as o 
o > 
a a 
. o o 

As ft 

ft ° 03 

a »o\2 
Ph <—< d 


a 

3 

a 

►H 

« 

Ph 

a 

o 

a 

H 

< 

Q 


73 73 • 

>» >» 2 
_a a ,2 
a a <» 


o 

co 


&* 

HH U 

d 

2 ^ 

a § 
d a 


03 "a 
a ‘3 
a 2 


73 


l-i 73 

o a 
ft o 

• pH 


a 2 a 

2 ° -hH 

a 

cn- 0 § 

'"A 3 

k. a o 
ft 

a d 2 

2 a A 
ft H « 
a -a a 

ft A 2 
a .sp g 
P d be 


03 


.S "3 

ftc3 - *■§ 
be d ft ^ 

ca 

ft H<< «1 

rH ft 

^'d .a a 

03 rt 

«4H 

a co >s ° a 

.2 - r| § 

ft bs 

T5 ^ ^ J fj 

1 an ^ 


£ 

o 

M 

H 

< 

H 

►H 

u 

o 

s 

w 

H 

Eh 

C/2 


ft o 


03 

rH 

o> 


c3 

-M 

m 
d 

§ • 
CJ o 
• “ • p ft 
oo oo 
o oo • 

r-H CO Oh 


73 


73 

d 

H-> 

a 

H-> 

a 

H-> 

in 

ft 

d 

a 

ft 2 
o ° 
Ph § 
> o 

8^ 

a 


i 

>-) 


tn cn 

a a 

h3 h-3 


03 


rj 03 a <o 


O Mb 
03 ft 

03 . A 

ft ^ 
3-*o 
co 


03 


CO 


ft 

.U 


• • rH p-H 

• rCj fH i-C^ Oi 

ftO yU 

_*■ ^ - » 73 CO 

r-H Os r-H GO t> fe. 

03 O rH i-H > > 

03 ffi a a « a 

rH t-H rH r-H H H 



















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


195 


co 

P 

4 

4 

(S 

-o 

a 


c /2 


Ih 

a 


3 a 


a 
4 

a 

s* s 

O o 

4 


co 

P 


ti 

G< 


CO 

>> 

a 

nd 


4 4 
4 (H 

££ 

4 

CO -Q 


V 

* HP 

£ c3 

Ah -P> 


93" 

°P a _. 

§ Sc 

CD o3 


«+H 

© a 

© 

.a £ 

Ah 

HP 

•2 CO 

s ^ 
>>£ 

§ w 

© g 

P ca 


«*!, © © 

^ .a 

4-> 

-3 O fl 

a 0 _g 

*3 ® •£ 

• l-ft 

C3 • «-* -n 

R M £ 

R 1 1 

2 a-g 

co co a 

4 V 
0) 4 44_ 

fltfl o 


CO »ft 

>».a 

c 3 3 

nd 3 


a 


3 

a 


a o 
a **-< 
P „ 

^ g 

co <U 

« (=1 
<P • <—< 

7 a 

§1 


A Ji 

a ca 

Oh 

< +j 

§ 3 
a a 


a 

o 


co 


_ 4 

8 M 

a •- 

53 h 
© a 

r-H d 

CS .2 

aP 


o 

©* 

a 

d-> O 

3 *•« 

Ji © 

*© 

© 
M 

o 

_ •+-» 
Cj o> 
O -Q 

• H 

*■> co 
*43 ►» 

4 a 

and 


4J 

a 


© $ 
a w 

Ch *-rt 

cd y 

C3 

• d 


09 

CD 

a 

bo 

C 

o 

4 


s- 

o 

p 


7 A 

■a « 


o 

^« 

GO 

a 

•> ft 

CD ^ 

Ah 

Q2 *• 

o v 

m o 

o > 


-M 

o o a . 
>»no' Q © 

a -ft 

« - o -a 

° to ^ 2 


^ o 
to 


CJ © 

w V 

.sa 

d © 

GO tj 


0) 

& X 
£ © 
a 

a o 


co co 2 

Ah rH C3 

8 © ° 

CD 

0) 


o 


a 


CG «ft 

a o 


7 £ cd ^ 
4 co -ft id 

cu -a o 2 
o nd -»-> a 


a 

a 


co © 

4i a3 

a 

3*3 


bD 

a 

• ^'H 

-a a 
4 a 

4 *K 

8 .a 

a C 


4 r^\ 
-M 

a" 

o 

o • ** 

y 4 

a - 
a 4 


I *4-< U 

5 o o 
a o £ 

o >—i 

a « 
a= 

g| « 


CD 

Ah 

a? 

o 

® 

o 


CD 

Ah 

O 


§ -a 

co 4 


a ^ 

■h 3 

-gj 
• s © 

o © 

*HH 

CD 

t) •- 

fl Ah 

•3 8 

£ £ 
a o 


a 

a 

CO 

CO 

4 



•S 


|3 

4 

a 

-3 
a 
• !—* 

£ 

a 

O 


a 

C/2 


co 


© b 

© 2 

bo O 

. nd CJ 

o ^ 

u ^ 


bb 

a 


CO 

»4 

O 


CO 

Ch 
4 

_ 4 

a m 

£3 © 

co 4 


4 .'ii 

~ ~a la 


C/2 


CO 

tH 

3 

'bfi 

4 

hJ 


co 

Ui 

4 

4 

m 

o 


co 

o 


cG 

a 

4 

a “1 
a c /2 
© _• 
O P 


CO 

CO Q 

© 3 

Si J 

^OJ 4 

-a .a 


a 

4 

a 

CO 


CO 
4 

cG “ © 

g -8 £ © 
•J-g 3=2 
a 8 o ^ 
^ P P 52 


CD 

Ah 

CD O 
Ah CD 
0> CD 

o v 
53 8 
O o5 


a f- 1 

2 03 

o • ^ 

QQ 


CO 


nd 
a 
a 

4 

a 

4 

Ah j, 

a 3 
3 o 

C/2 4 co 

«4-l +J 

© .a 3 

co *- a 

rt) 4-> «—h 

bC.2 .2 
nd nd be 

a © 

H» P 


CO 

4 

a 

o 

• »*H 

CD 

CD 


a s 

8 -S 

. a 

>s 4 

a “ 

a c /2 

© 

P P 



a 

4-> 

o 

. 

tH 

«*- o 

o a 

Sh 
4 
> 
O 
bC 

a © 
a cm 

V> <u 

CO X 

a © 

P > 


& 

*o 


aj ■ i 

a © a 
3 ^ a 

CJ h 


1“G 

a a m 

.ago 

>» © _. 
a © a 
P 4 a 

C M O 
3 4 

R bD 4 

a a 02 
C/2 -o 
4 . 

“ © fl 

.a 8 © 

p aP 


2 ■& 
e| 

a h 

« © 

V o-J 

'5'a 

.122 
2 4 
a 4 

ca ^ 

o raft 


4 co 

„Q 4 

-a 

CO .£P 

«5 3 

§- • 
w -x CD 
Q) fl) 
P 

>> -4-> 03 

5b2 

a 4 

.a © a 
^ a 

+J 4 


a a 

•ft 4 

-a 

>>* 

a 

nd co 

CO Ch 

4 a 
a 4 
nd >> 

4 


8-fi £ 

S 'a ft "© 

a os o ^ 

,2 .S 4 . R 

t; •- 13 § 

4 3 aG ^ 




4 

Ch 

a 


M 

a 


4-> 4 

co a 
cG 3 

P d-j 


a 

JI 

S'© 


>> 

03 


CD 

fl) “ 
Jh CD 
Ah 0> 

4 © ft rg 

bc^a a H 


00 

r-H 

p ^ 
» u 6 
I s's 

O o ft 

92 2 05 

a ^ rft 

P co co 

P a a 
SPP 
£ 


a 

HP 

O 

U 

Q 

-a 

4-> 

tl 

O 


rft 

00 


4 

4 

C/2 


oi 

05 

eft 

d 


- ^ 
GO to 

2 05 

^ <-H 


CD 


* 

a 

P 


CO 

* 


a 


P 











Mandatory Primary— Continued 


196 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Pi 

< 

§ 

M 

Pi 

Ph 

H 

< 

Q 

W 

H 

< 

M 

a 

o 

£ 

w 

Pi 

<3 

05 

w 

H 

<! 

Q 

HH 

D 

§ 

u 

w 

o 

M 

w 

£ 

Pi 

o 

fa 

03 

fa 

43 

i—i 

fa 

fa 

O 


43 


a 
o 

a 

09 

a 

73 « 

« a 

Q -a 


Ui ^ 

^ b 

1.1 

1 s 

o 


a 

a 

o 

m 

fa 

43 

PM 


-a 

a 

a 

U 


be 


43 


•ja PQ 

s & 

«4-i cj 

° Q 


to 

a 

-d 

o 

© . 
a b 

s s 

9 a 


t-i ■ < 

o 43 43 
a -a Oh, 
co 

© to 

© >>.3, 

H (j H 

a ^ 


a 
■£ »o 


to 

n 

43 


fa 

Oh 

43 

fa 

o 


43 

fa 

O 

a 


a 

a 

-a 


a 

a 

fa 

Oh 


a « 

o b 

43 ” 

2 o 
fa Ph 

►» g 

^ eg 
cS 

“* -U> 


a 


b s 
1 8 
150 

o o 

fa Oh 

° '-a 

PM CO 


r to 
55 to 

Oh aj 


£ 


4-> 

U 


•£ CO £ 

o m ^ 
dr 43 .9 


a o 
o a 


43 -*-> 
fa 

O -r! 
«h-h 

43 a 

-O a 


s i 

a -a 

© 2 
oi b 

03 

a ns 

52 o 

73 GO 

43 a 

§ S 

a *■» 

4-> CO fa 

O co ^h 

a « 3 


a 

CO • 

43 a 

40 .2 

H-> 

43 a 

■fa fa 

a a 

rs H 

8 § 

O 

to 

fa 
43 

o- 


-a 

4) 

a 

W 


CO 

a co 

O fa 

.a aj 

.ti a 

■fa bo 

flj • »—» 

CH to 

S’S 

• i—< 

■b s 

•S 1 
a a 
o £ 
£ S' 


2 

o 

■fa 

43 

JJ3 

73 

M5 


d3 

*3 

cr 

43 

fa 

43 

a 

o 

£ 


i d3 

a fa 

• »—< Q 

w bo 

'O -S < 

fa CO 

a 43 

__ 43 

*50 

.& O 

.2 >» 

§ « 

a § 

s S 

Pm 7c 


43 O 

a b 

o *3 

hH|io 

. i -*— 1 

a 43 

-j 

CO CO 

fa 

O **-h 
-fa O 
43 

43 to 

73 t> 

>a 

-O 43 


fa 

o 

■fa 

a 

-a 

a 

a 

S 


CO 

JH 

O 


s 

B B J 

a 03 0 43 

S fa ,2 fa o 

g fa 53 ^ -H 

H 43 O O ^ 


a 

43 


a 


CO 
43 
43 

co ra fa O 5S a 

CO tn 4-> I- Oh •fa 

2 oo b‘3 •§ 

"d be 43 fa a 'S 2 

a zr *j a a a 

a o g -j? o b o 


CO 

0 ) 

-<-> 

S-, 

efi 

CU 


m „ S t 
. 8 «|| 8 
sll”®° 

s|” ° 


43 

3 co 

+-> U 

O 

•—< 

w O 

• «-h r; 

Sf iJ 

43 0 


O «*i 



co 

43 

bO 

n3 

a 


JQUHPP^PUQ 


CO 

M 

S 
a 

53 
o 
a 

s | 
U H 


CO 

fa 

43 
> 43 

50 

o 


tn 

Ut 

O 

a 

a 


tn 

3 
B fa 
« 50 
o 


a 

43 

a o 

tn icd 
tn $3 
^ (D O o 

o is 

_ O S-~ 

PUc^Q 


m 


K 

43 

w 

S 

o 

H 


H 

O 

M 

•< 

U 


as 0 

S s 

| <5 

Pi 

■< 

Ch 


a 

•fa 

o 


e+- fa 

o o 
a 

VO fa 

fix 43 

© > 

^ a 

bC fa 
. 0 ^ 
1 -2 
U > 


>) m »d 
■fa a a 5® 
fa «fa o 5r! 
a -d •« 2 
Oh 3 -d 
S a 43 
ii a bo 

, . • r—( 

g a 

•73 -a § g 

• - a a 

2 ^ 43 
^ nd 04 43 

43 a >a 
a P S 

rj • •—< 

a ^ 

W 


a 

.2 

’■fa 

43 

43 


a O O 

43 -fa e*- 43 


££•35 

O 43 , 
03 fa 

be ^ 

C Ui 

.5 o 

+-> u~i 

tn 

81 

> 


OT 43 43 


a 

2 3 

o .2 

43 43 
43 43 


43 

c3 V> 
Oh a 
—, 43 
"dj fa-< 

■< o 


43 43 

73 'a 

• —• fa 
-fa 43 

a a 

43 43 

-a be 


« 

3 

a 

« 

Pu 

tl 

o 

w 

H 


Sz; 

o 

M 

H 

< 

H 

m 

u 


§ 

W 

H 

O 

H 

CA 2 


% ^50 

•«! * Z 
■S-5 | 
s-i ° 

•S-S-3 

a; • 

C/5 F-rS 

o 43 72 

Oh fa a 
^ Oh a 

■4-^ 

tn , M 
^ r! ° 

hP «2 -73 


►j, CO 

-0 •- 
■d fa 

to a 

S J 

di 

a ^ 

8 1 

8 | 

CO ^ 
fa 

fa a 

4) .S 


43 co 
fa M 

co fa 

§ ^ 

03 

8 -fa 

73 ^ 

-fa 43 

a • 

43 -fa 

43 a 

tn 

«2 Jj 


a 


a 

o 

> 

•fa 

43 

_43 

73 

O 

-fa 

fa 

o 

> faH 

Ph 

a 


i 

0 a 
<5 fl 

a a 

"d ^5 

CO o 

2 a 
-5 fa 

H*fa 

1 | 

r" fa 

Pm be 


^ * 
^ OP 

fa CJ 

43 40 w 
Oh C>i 

tn §» • 
*d 


fa 

o 

a g 

fa a « 
a o > 

fa co O 

>i 8 PC 
fa <u 

a 


fa a 

fa w 


43 

-Q 


fa 

0.-0 


’d a ■ 

fa ••- , 

• 

-a « • 
73 • 

fa 

co a 

a § 

3 a 

^ • 1-4 

-a b' 
a J3 
a ^ 

w CO 
43 

co a 

.2 H 


a 

Oh 


43 

-a 


- fa 
a fa 
43 a 
.a co 

M 

Pm m *~ m> 

a fa 
fa -0 

>i 73 


©3 

OJ 


-d <o 

o 

CJS 


a 

8 © 


so ^ 
So 

^ CO 


to * 
fe "J* 
$ 2 


OJ 

a •© 2 

ar 

o *r 


-a 

n 


O U 


*o . • 

rH 

Oi <51 

rH 

2 6 
lo 

►P dj 

05 

• «n rH 

CO ^ 

o ^ 

GO 


c3 

a 


>> 

CO 

a 

fa 

-a 

a 

• >H 

43 

Pm 

>> 


a 


43 

fa 

> 

• —h 

_a 

43 

H 

CH—1 

o 


43 

•v 

rH 

©3 

OJ 

rH 

CO 

is 

J 



















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


197 


% 


u 

o 

6 

-2 

d 
• ^ 

d 

• —4 

4-> 

*4-1 

o 

l> 

■ 

CO 

4) 

6 

ji> 

p 

4-4 

*43 

4-3 

a 

CO 

.2 


HS 

O 

»4 

bfi 


5 

CO 

* 

E 

flj 

.9 

o 

8 

d 

d 

& 

CO 

.9 

-d 

o 

g 

d 

o 

o 

; , 

4-T 

# o 

(4 

o 

&4 

0 

o 

a 

«*4 

O 

o 

o 

ex 

P-4 

p 2 

w 

(4 

o 

4-4 

« 

d 

o 

*C 

4-3 

> i 4 



r*|06 

» , t 

# 

-2 

5 

• 

CO 


>4 

4-4 

4-> 

o 

.9 

o 

-M 

o 

• —M 

'S 

t> 

d 

CD 

• —■* 
4-4 


d 

d 

o 

o 

Sh 

-4-> 

CO 

• I-H 

H3 

2 

o 

4-4 

-d 

o 

d 

4) 

s- 

4-> 

CO 

• 

4) 

EP 

_d 

• 

4) 

8 

a 

d 

d 

o 

o 

d 

d 

o 
• ^ 

co 


O £ JsO 
Cl co O n 

♦ ^ 

CJ 'TD 
2 d o 
cl ft 

*3 .2 « 

-*£ d 

H 3 o 

a o e3 

• -*0 4) 

W3 «— 

o ° d 

4-> H*# HH 


O P 


8 $ 
"o o w 

,2 a ft 

.9 -g © 

s Ss 

z* m 

. O T) 

>s *r p 
+> i3 p 
b w a 

2 ^ X 
P*T3 O 


C_i * 

S w 

° a; 
o 

T3 o 

d 

o ^ 
.d o 

CO rj 
CO '■H 


I CO 
.22 >» 
T3 ee 

'V 

HO 


d 

o 


CO 


&' 


53 fe 
O o 
o *♦■* 

o 
t* o 
o *o 


go 

d t-< 

% g 


JP "g 

£ IS 


t* £? 

p b 
o ^ 

m a 

o *c 
P, 

'S g 

o O 

V *4H 

— O) 

= 1 
«+-< >» 

a 

ns 

d o 

d CO 


m * 



ft d 
g a 
£ ® 



9 >j o 

Sros 

UUHPh 


d co 

3 p 

d p 
co rrl 

w «d 
O O 

fcb p 

_- o £ 
PU« 


Jh 

o 

-M 

c3 

a 

a> 

CO 


C/5 


co 

Ph 

0) CO 

a 8 8 

£11 

o _, 

d 7 ^ 
d ^ b 
o .t5 g 
V V ^ 


CO 


£ 
8 

2 © 
„ o -g 

111 

O - 5G 

p*;d 
-d *d 73 

SP'S — 
d d o 

B *£ 

o o -g 
CQ H C/2 


3 •- 
.2 g 

4-* tJ 

g a • 

m co 

^ 4-> ^ 

f- cx o 

O 4) -g 

-d « g 

4-> X Ji, 

o « 4) 

d M cj 

d P •t3 

d® § 
d O H3 


© 4-> 

Pc w 
tc 

4-> tT 

.2 p 

-d ^ *d 

* *» ® 

•g d « 
a 

-d o a 

.3 o § 

W p* o 


to kO 

.2 ^ 

43 o* 

^ d 
8 § 

t» 2 

o ,2 
-d 5fl 
o 

• a d 
o ®s 

I S 


.9 

4-4 

4) c3 
O ^ 
> "O 

<u 9 
,d 8 

d >» 
o d 
d 


t- 

O 


CO 

O 
bfl 

b a> 

C3 _ i 

r -1 ^ 

6^4 4_> 

O co 


4> 

-2 •- 

dd 4-> 

o d 
P* 4J 

dd ^ 

O 4J 

.2 w 

n 4) 

i s? 

>- 

I's 

Is? 

<1 *d 


Ut . • 

o >? 

!*H 4-4 

- d 
>» d 
•d o 
d o 

o d 

° -5 

>4 g 
d 2 
d & 

d w 

” 8 

4) g 

o 53 

> o 


p* d 

4) d 

'SJ 

d^ o 

'TS 

g d 

d 

H tn 

M O 
12 ^ 
13 9 
H 5 


-o d . 

| 

H %$ 

. 4J 

co fc* 

^ d cj 
d ,,H JD 

d 2 

^5 m 2 

8 2 g 

2 c2 > 

-P H 4) 


oo © -d 
O) 4ft co CJ 
H CJ oo v 


CO 

rft 












Mandatory Primary— Continued 


198 


The Annals of the American Academy 


K 

a 

pu 

EH 

Q 

fa 

H 

£ 

J-H 

a 

o 

55 

w 

PS 

<3 

03 

w 

Eh 

Hi 

© 

hH 

© 

£ 

<1 

U 

w 

o 

I—I 

H 


fS 

O 

fa 

CO 

fa 

O 

HH 

fa 

fa 

o 


© 

o 
• ^ 
4-> 

c$ 

Ph 

C$ 

8 

Q 


43 

4-> 

c3 

Q 

43 

4-> 

ci 


-© -O 

2 C 

§3 ** 

Ph 0 


5 *3 

II 

I 

A, o 
bo *in 

£& 

& 

< 4-1 sS 

0 Q 


XJ ^ N 

G X 

.2 fc 
•ti a 
t> .SP 

Ph <*> 
bo*S 
•S h 
Is J 2 

11 

IS- 


• ^ d 

.2 o 

d e- 

a £ 

2 a) 

4-> 

* CJ 
£ 43 

o "S 

■53 co 

2 e- 
C 43 
4) 43 

^ o 

2 'eS 

M Cb 


S >> 0 4) 


" 03 

m c/2 
o 

I 

N 


x 


CO 

Ph 

O 

-M 

t> 

jD 


cd 

• f-h 

Eh 

o 

-M 

o3 

c © 

a; O 

So ©* 


CO 

B g o 

* O © 

•> . ^3 

co - 

flj O 

> 2 o 
P S o 

(3 

H-J 43 

© jj „ 

43 .TS co 
CO cl Eh 
4) h 4) 
Eh £ 43 

g* I ® 

Eh 43 o 


o) ai 4J 

d Eh 

o 2 43 

n ® "o 


CJ O 1X1 
D U 
T? 1 — 1 P* 

< Pi 


CO 

Eh 

O 


to 

Ex 

O 

4-> 

o 

43 


I H 

3 s 

8 8 

xi 

P- 

O 

4-> 

C$ 

G 

<X> 
x> 


O 

D 

c$ 


1 s 

.2 v 

+H h 2 

o3 d 

£ to 


cu © 

p,2 ”3 
co m 
C O 

-H W 3 l-H 


m 


m 

co 

0) 

u 

be 


hJ C 

O 

to •© 

i3 c 

c8 © 

bo > 

43 C 

13 © 
-o U 


CJ 

CJ 


2 

2 

o 

43 


Eh 

O 

• fH 

E< 

P 

C0 

>» 

a3 

H3 


'm ® 

I » 

.2 c 

"S 4J 

c 2 


Eh O 
a> 4J 
Ch 

H-> E- 

0 .2 

‘t- 

to 

4J 
43 

. J5 

L? ^ 

2 tO - 

c « c 

• fH X • «—h 

E? 03 E- 

P O & 


E4 

o3 


'P 

43 

C 

cr 

43 

u 

43 

c 

o 


4^4 

Ch 

O 

4-J 

e3 

C 

~ 


C-i 

O 

a 

Ch 

43 

> 

w> £ 

H-» S 
E- g 2 
2 2® 
2 43 o 
«3 +i d) 
> 3 hj 

0.2 5 

O h3 c/2 


to 

c-> 

O 

H-> CO - 
"H K 

43 5 43 
•-H .S ri 


03 

C 


2 

to 

CO 


43 43 

C ” fo 

8^ « 

• G • O 

UPQ 


w 

Is 

O 

M 

M ^ 

S ^ 

Eh <1 


5 


CO 

_43 

*3 

Eh 

d 

Oh 


t>H 

DS 

Hj 

a 

M 

G 

Ph 

fa 

O 

fa 

Eh 

<1 

Q 


A « 

-3 2 

<1 *TS 

o 

fl JS 

"H 

•3 s 
$ 8 
3 

H o 


■h ^ S C 


'S J3 

J 

c « 
c ,n 

T3 S 
c S 

8 « 
8 -9 

CO 


Eh 

Cj 


to to 

c a 

hP W) 


Eh 

■H g 

e3.1 

43 Eh 

>» P 


s 

8 

H-> 

>» 
> c3 

• fa CO 
CO CO 
to 43 
43 43 
43 43 

b3 CJ 
3 

to rc 


5? 

O 

M 

H 

<1 

Eh 


O 

fc 

◄ 

fa 

H 

Hj 

EH 

02 


h‘^13 

2 

»—5 ^ 

0 3 « 

>■ 43 <© 

^ rH 

of 43 rv 

»H Q ^ 


C 03 


cS W3 


rS ^ 

CJ O CO rH 

U 4) co 


o ca 




aUUP 


00 



















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


199 


*2 Ph 

fa cl 
fa 

a a 

5513 
S a 
«2 "o 

<3 <y 
J5 o 
a 

s s. 

4P 

d ^ 

O « 


03 

a 

a 

50 

o 

D 


a 

a 

o 

a 


■8 O ® 

w Pm b 
ph 45 
O ^3 

^ n ® 
>> *> 

. • efl to 

8 

a oss 

d Ci o 


4P 

m 

u 

cd 

a 

a ^ 

fa 

yd 


Ph 

V 

5 £ 

od 

H_J G 

o © 

£ S 


o 

a 

t^s 

Ph CO 

a ph 
0 a 

*C 50 

Ph o 
bo 

a K. 

dn ^ 

73 4-» 

8 § 
2 5 

PhP 


K^S F^i 

a a 
T3 r d 

fa a 
13 o 

4-H 

C /2 ^ 

H3 

a .fa 
a x 
yd +-> 

43 

a a 
ph fa a 
a «2 ^ 
a .a 


4) «h-h g 

■s °-2 

4-4 ■ i 

1/3 cj a 

, • *4 t-H 

fc ^ o 

O 4-4 -j 

•^.2 a 

43 "O 

?H f, 

O Ph o 

- o 


■te a >> 
© yd 

£ ^ £ 
«4H Ph 
o 

43 4) 

■2 ES3 


a 


p_i h-h ** 

o a 43 
V Ph +J 

43 a 
a 

43 

be 

43 

yd 

u, -y> +* 
S co 


a 

t- 

43 

> 

o 

be 


S CO 
•— 


o 

Ph 


43 


CO 


a 


a 


n >>*© 

° -s 

d • #\ 

o a a 
o o o 
<x 43 yd 


a, © 
. «—» a 

yd ya 

co -t-> 

a 


fe co o 
*r co 43 


43 


43 


CO 

a 43 a 
a yd o 

-1 3 • p—4 

5 -8 

O +> V, 
> fa a 


, a 

o ^ 

W • p-4 

•c ^ 

■a © 

.2 a 
ns ° 

u, a . 

o a a 

. -•-> 43 

^ ,-4 

■fa ■■© 
a a 

-H • — 

a is 


O >5 
p? 

_ a 

50 .§ 
_ *C 

s 


a 


a 

H-> 

a 

-a 

"'S 

a 

a 

a 


CO 

Ph 

a 


(O 

o 

Ph 

o 

Ph 

Ph 


Ph ya 

- £ 
o b 

> ng 

«3 O 
<23 GO 


*C 

~a 

a >, 
a X! 
w> 

• f-4 Ph 

C/2 O 


2 

o 


co 

Ph 

a 

a 


CO 
Ph 

a 
a 

50 

§31 

a -bb^* 
UhJU 


a 

a 

Td 


0 w 

a Ph 

a a 
a a g 5 § 


a 

a j-p 
-d Py 

• ^4 I 

03 0> 

0) o 

Sh • ^4 


12 
a 
o 


co 

a _ 
a a 

m sa 

o o 


m 

a; 

w y 


o a 

® m -s 
^ o g 


03 

a 4«> S 

o ^ ^ 

• c—> 


03 


a a a 


3 S 


CO 


w 4) 


3 .-fa 

- 3 


a 


CO 


Py t> L? C/2 


a a 
a a bo 

C^ Q • rH • 44 # 

UOh^flPffiU 


«3 p.S! 

• p .d 


0) 

*4 

3 

4-> 

• H 

bC 

a 


CO 

Ph 

a 

ya 

a 

a 


i 

a 
o 

• ^4 

03 
03 

• ^4 

a 
a 

o 
a 

o ’Td 
a a 

Ph O 

a Ph CO 

> rd Ph 

5 3 « 

O 


g 2 
a o 

0 ta 

co 2 

co a 
a a 

Ph CO 

be • 
a c /2 
o • 
U P 


CO 

CO Ph 

(h a ^ 

8 a® 

03 O 
03 a-> 

0> o 

fe'c 

§ # « 
OmUQ 


p- 50 

O a 

a w 

Ph 

a a 
> -fa 
o a 


CO 

Ph 

a 

a 

50 

o 


fa C/2 
° X 

P P 


co 

Ph 

a 
a 

50 
o 
fa 

is 

o 
P H 


to 

a 

a 

50 

o 

& 


i i 

g a 

.S a 

a « 

c5 nd 
bC c3 
u <p 
O 

W 03 

rd ce 

CO rj 

SJ HH 

3-3 

O IS 

Ph ^ 

>> a 
a o 
< P 


CO 

a 

a 

50 

o 

a 

H-> 

«3 

-PH 

co 

Ph 

o 

«+H 

CO 

a 

H-> 

fa 

'■fa 


+H I CO 

fa a fa 
o « k. 
^ 'fa 2 

£ 0 fl 

2 ya 
a ^3 

•JT? ^ 

a bcyd 

50 . ^ 


fa 


w CO 

a fa 
yd 


a fa 
fa 

Ph bC 

a Ph 

H-> O 
«*h 

fa —h 

a fa 
fa a 

43 o 


H-H 

fa 

a 

fa 


a 

.Jd 

P 

a 

a 


o 


- a g 
a x .2 

O -M hH 


fa 

yd 

CO 


a 

o 


a y- 1 
fa a a 

O «H-H N 


Ph 

o 

a 

Ph 

a 

> 

o 

bo 


2-2 

« «J 
fa o 
p > 


o 2 
o q3 
o a 
o a 

t-H 

bfi 

a « 

P fa 

CO 1—1 

fa 

« -a 

co 03 
a 


Ph 

fa 

P 


CO 

a 

H-H 

o 

> 


a 

o 

• H 

4H 

a 

_a 

"a 



a 

a 


0 
a 
a 

fa 

>> a 

fa > 
a 

2 a co 

3 yd ph 


a 'a 

•I-H U 
Ph 

a 

^-2 

a a 

V fa 
0 a 


. a 
-h nfa 

Ph S 

fa 


.• a 

>> H-H 

3 a 
a nfa 

CO w 
CO 


fa 
a 

*S ^ 

'V 

•ph 4 ; 
S 2 Ph 

r a a 
P be yd 


fa 

C/2 


yd 

H 


CO 

Ph 


a 
a 
> 
a 

yd a 

+H -i-H 

fa >? 

r ° a 

P 1-5 


a c/ 2 

85 

2 fa 
c/2 3 
o 


2 b 

g fa 

a 


a 

a 

a 

a 


fa 
0 
pH 

H-H Ph 
CO 

a 

SP «3 

P a 

fa ^ 

.5 C/2 


>»fad 

•+- 1 a 

fa § 

^6 


p 

a 

a 


Is 

| a 

-2 o 

Td a 


a 

o 

H ‘tj 

a a 

"u 'a 
fa 

I i 

Ph a 

-P 

a co 

^ b 

O 03 
4P 73 




o co 

co i-y 
CX 03 

* *d 

an® 

p u ^ 

H fa 

^ tnT^ H? 

2 os 22 ^ 
fa ^ ng 

2 e s I 

1*3,3 I 


cn 


■ Td l 
a i> 

.2 03 

a *> 

Py 43 
a 

• - c /2 

SO „ 

^ 03 

rH 

4f S 

(U 

a o§ 
p p g: 


03 go rj 
M H 9< 
rH 03 


yd 

p 


yd 

P 


o 

03 


CO 

Ft 
fa 


a 

Td 

o 

P 

CO 




l 

fa 

l> 

o 

CO 


a 

a 

CO 

CO 

a 

a 

a 

a 

H 


03 


CO 

is 

fa 


p 

a 

P 

a 

a 

0 

fa 


a 
o 
a 
a 

a _ 
yd a 

C/2 C/2 

• 

® 03“ 


. 03 CO 


03 

CX 


i> 

H 

K CO 

a. i 

oo 

o 

CO 
43 
C^ 


Xfl 

a 

x 

<D 

H 


3 

C/2 

a 

H-> 

« 

'pH . 
0 ° 
o g 
P S 


1 

C/2 

Ph 

C/2 


O 

03 


Ph O CO CO CO 

C/2 03 H 5) H 

00 . . • 

jr; o Ph y j0 

03 (Q Ph 


Ph 

C/2 


(X 


t> 

o 


PC 


03 

o 


302222 


4 


(X 

HjP 

*0 


co 


% 

0,^*3 33 *3,3 




c n 
* 


<x 

to 

4< 


to 

to 

a 

C/2 













Mandatory Primary— Continued 


200 


The Annals of the American Academy 






eg 

Pi 

ea 

73 

<u 

Q 

"3 

a 

o 

M 

Pi 

<U 


a3 

Q 

a» 

4-> 

eg 

TO 

-d 

d 

eg 

p 


eg 


a .§ 

1 s 

A. o 
*>*53 

2 « 

• f-4 

* I 

° Q 


C/3 

d tfi 
O Pi 
• d flj 

.■a a 

■jft bb 

£ tn 

»-S 


a 

• rH 

a 

o 


p 

4> 

a 

3 


4*4 

P 

o 

4-1 

eg 

d 

eg 


i p 
*p O 


o 

4-> 


p *2 

*p 

cL^ 

<u 

W1 

4*4 

eg . 

nb >4 

_ eg 

2 a 


p 

<u 

d 

o 

• r—» 

</3 


a .2 

a 
a 

o 
o 


p 

o 


o'? 
£ * 
a g 


C/2 


tn 

p 

<y 

4-1 

o 

> 

T3 

<u 

ca 

g 

d 

cr 

o 

o 


P 8 

5S 
p- o 

a ^ 

| i 

o p 

bd o 

4-> 

S 1 


O 0> 

"o 

43 


. Cfi 

jq 9> 

Q 

p be 


P 


T3 g 
£ § 

> <* 

^ 4-> 

a; i§ 

42 


I I 4-i 4) 

d *d! M o 

k iso O 
O C 3 

« g -s 

°-2 

I g 
8 & ®* «2 
0) - 

ft 3 » « 

P 3 bb «3 > 




3 "d 1 
£ § 
2 § 

•§ “ 

cr -a 

M d 

M O 
P tn 

<y o 

.§ 43 • 
« a 


4 

SR a 
8 * 
a* m 

p p 
CL O 

ST -g 

o « 


X 


<u 


a 


O <» 

42 


<u <u 
a —i 
O eg 

1 «■* • rH 

-4-» 4J 

o d 

« g 

<u no 


ii ® o ua 

a ° 'S 

8 ° 

w -g 

& 'p 
P “ 60 44 

° ^ £ .2 

oB-o 

fl ► » 

•a » a" eg • 

-4-> 5^ > ^ 

cw o 5> P 

^ ^ O 4) 

•4-i O CJ 


cn 

a> 

a 


co O 

•2.Q 


w 

la 

^ « 

° U 
Lp ^ 

® B 
S ^ 

H <3 


5 


•ft P 6«D 

o o d 

*4-1 .3 

*0 3 g 
<a p 
bo^ a- 
d o jj 

33 D ®S 
O 

Cl O p . 
^ 2 fl 
>, « S .2 

•£•&£% 
eg d O 
Ph <U bC 


_4) 

o3 


i i 

2 *o 
a d 
d 

dd -3 
w eg 
a; p 

a 2 

H g 


a 

•-< y 


d 

o 


4 be p* 

’g W>J 

o.a^ 

g ”3 
in o Oh 


>» 
eg 
-O 
<m 
<U 
d 

' H< d 

^ a 


g 


■ i 

‘p 2 
04-° 

__ tn 

eg ^ 
•<rj eg 

g ^ 

CL O 
tn GO 

•« o 

p -p 


8 


d 

o 

o 

<u 


y> 

4-1 

a 

0) 


win o 


w o o 
>>73 

^ a£ 


!? 

O 

M 

H 

< 

H 

M 

CJ 

a 

S 

■< 

w 

H 

H 

C/2 


43 

P 


t" »o 
i-i g5 
05 GO 
i-i ex 

tn » 

gs 

p 53 

■T3 o 
<u »o 
33 ^ 
d,<X 

I c5 
d d 


O 05 rH 
V r-4 (X 
W 05 05 

rH r-4 

i% I* 


j j 


05 

r of co‘ 



















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


201 



05 

03 

>» 


>> 

3 

ed 

ed 

T3 

T3 


O 

O 

O 

CO 

o< 

rH 

0 

O 

O 

4-> 

4-> 

4-> 

0 

O 

O 

40 

40 

GO 


03 

>> 

a 

© 

GO 

4-> 

0} 

cS 

a 




03 

« 

o 

45 

-M 

o 

5> 

45 

c 

• H 

a 

45 


O 


.2 .2 

■jr? 

V 4-» 

0) c« 

r—< • p«H 

45 73 

Id „r 

to 45 

a iS 

45 to 

be 

-H 45 
cfl jrt 

^ 4J 

ts.S 


.3 

45 

33 

£ 

t. 

o 


T3 

45 


«0 


a 

o 


O ed 

t>.s 

sT S 

t§ 

%£ 

45 


0) ®< 

x a 

45 a 

o 'S 

H 05 

. - 05 

45 


O 

£ 


45 

T3 

ed 

a 


t- 

o 

a 

o 

o 

o 


Jo a 

a ^ 

45 A 


05 

t- 

45 


45 


45 


4) 2 to 

45 5 ^ a 

g a£0 a 

h | o a _a 


45 

45 

m 

o 


m *j ,S 
g 2 3 


^ Sb* s 2 


g ^ 
bo 3 .22 
^ 5 to 

45 05 


ed 

&0a 


u cd v 
' to a 
~ o 


S w .5 

Q • pH 


45 

o-J 

Co 

4-> 

c/2 


to 

O 

• —H 

45 

a 

3 

C/3 


05 I 

§0 o 

T3 U 
3 
>-s 


05 

45 

45 

O 


3 

3 

O 

U 


05 

45 

45 

m 

o 

£> 
• i —4 

o 


M 

3 

03 

a a 

45 05 
*3 05 


05 

(1 

d 05 45 
45 to 


45 

to 

3 
on 
jjd 

• p*H 

bp 03 
45 to 
—« 45 

O «*n P 


® °a 

3 .a o co O 


5Q 

O S 

2% 

.£ 3 

-4-J • r—> 

r2 Po 
45 05 
4) 


03 

to 

45 

O 

m 

o 

3 

£ 

O 


o 

o 

o 


to ° 42 .3 

5b 45 3 3 ■ 

g ^ o £ o J -2 

PnPUfflU^Q 


to 

45 

33 


H O 


X 

45 

03 

to 

45 

45 


-rj to 

a a 
53 £ 

£> o 

• H 

u 


d kL 33 
3^0 
3=1 3 03 

■3 1-5 « 

to ey g 

05 O ”~ l 

i >» £ 

ed 05 
nri 

■S w O 

§ § > 

4> -3> o o 

^ 2 fes 


03 «0-c 
45 O 


y >-53 

o o 

45 rH 
40 - 


03 

3 v.o 
_45 £< 

rH 

4J 

“-a 

G 

O. cd 


C/2 I 
*-< tfl 

<u Qd 

* 0 
> 45 
■H 

cd 

O o-> 
t- M 
« fc. 
; O 

a *- 

3 45 

c ts 

13 "w 

-M 

o «+-« 


<D 


-a a 


o 

o 

o 


03 

tH 

o 

d 


03 

‘Sc 
45 

a 

45 03 »*- 

t O tfl 
45 .33 


3 wo 


| 


03 

t-> «4-l 

45 O 
45 


03 


a iB % ia 2 0 -2 
S o 2 ^ a 


O -d 4J 

^ bo I: d fl 

"to a d ^ 

^ iS o .t3 « § 

^ cn U O S U 


C/3 


3 

O 

a 


5 

o 


o 

o 


bC 

d 

2 -*3 

d q 

u > 


a 

o 

> 


o 


to 

o 

- a 

t- 

b£) 45 

d >■ 


03 

d 

u 


o 

be 

to 

O 


$ a 

to o 

cs • y 
a a 
a 

a v 


^ 3 


bo -3? 

a d 

1 s 
0 > 


C>0H|«> ' 

.2 >> 
43-°' 
T3 
03 a 
a a 
*43 bo 

to *3 

d M 

Po a 1 

.2 

* .§ 
£ a 
<< Do 


^ § 

t? 8 

•3 £ 

3 Po 


o .a 

. d 

>> a 

cd 45 

H3 IS 

s-° 

■§ I 

o *e 

a Do 

- 05 

C/2 


a o 

ce 

rn P 


to 

D. 


a js 

* 6.8 


d 

o 


c^ 


cd -f 

Do a 2 

c/2 pd a 


►» A 

a 

• S 1 

3* d 

45 a 

3 a 

^ a 

"I ^ 

t2 & 


A d 

a 

•y 03 

g S.9 

a 05 

-3 >> . 

• —O by 

3 fe *2 

2J a "O 

Do-d co 
w +j 05 
_. O 3 

.a -H 

03 

£3 

03 05 

a to 

>>ed 


a 

o 


cq >, 

1 f 

3 3 
-o ^ 

d >, 

cd to 
03 2 

2 a 

•43 •“ 

•ti u 

Q Do 

a 

• A 

4J 

03 

3 X 

be 43 


wo 

45) .g 

03 O 

ed •43 
a t> 
^ a 

a 

dT o 
a A 
d 2 

c3 -D 

d 03 

T3 b> 

to 3 

O ^3 


O 

o 

"«}< 


|2 
'I 1 

cw ^ 
03 M 


■t? 

a 

”3 

a 

a 

a . 

c3 O 

r-H 

O 

to 

rH 

a 


40 

rH 

05 


•| 

rr 

> s s 

«JJ 


I I 

Do a 
a a 
C/2 13 

**-1 yd 
O d 

. a 

H* d 

_2 a 

3 *2 

Eh t 

a 

4J Xi 

.S a 


.Jo « 
to 2 

a.® 

a 

to n 

a 

c 2 03 

>> % 


a 

C 


<» a 

S..2 

ed « 

a -2 
a a 


- K 

rH OS 
00 rH 

go CO 


ft 

GO 

rH 

CO 


•k 

05 
. OS 


o< 


2oU 

P GO 


45 -d 03 

* U I S 

CO* 12 1-3 ^ 

I 2 S 4f s 1 


GO 

« 

O 

05 


VS 
1 —I 
OS 


* 














Mandatory Primary— Continued 


202 


The Annals of the American Academy 


tM 

« 

s 

D3 

ft 

H 

< 

Q 

B 

H 

H 


O 

fc 

B 

« 

C 

co 

B 

H 

<1 

Q 

HH 

Q 

£ 

U 

H 

o 

►H 

« 

£ 

« 

o 

B 

cO 

B 

U 

M 

B 

B 

o 


c 

o 

• *—< 

4-1 

a 
S 

'ey 

43 

Q 

"S ^ 
ft a 

£ cj 

43 «*- 

Pu, © 


4) 

03 

£ 

V 

H-> 

cd 

X! 


<-i 

43 

-Q 


t— 

cd 


3 


U) 
£3 
* ~ 


4) 

U 

O 
«— 
4) 

ft 

CO 

K*J 

44 cd 

° Q 


co 

Eh CO 

O s- 

4) 

| g) 

ft M 
fcc*S 

fl 


4-> 

c$ 

a 

a 

o 

£ 


14 

43 

-O 

a 

ft 

5? 


4 0 * 

C • pH 

4> h|m ^ 
£3 43 

ft -s 


co 

CO 

4> 

fe 

Cl 

o 

U 


o 2 

■Kp 41 

tN ^3 

O *-> 

ft O 


2 o 

4> co 

> 


H|(0 

a 

• pH 

4> 

4-> 

O 

> 


E3 
ft 
O 

4> 

O Is? 43 
4) _C3 

43 ©3 ft 


CO 


O 3=3 

< 

^ £ 
<* « S3 ■ 
'S| ft 

§ ^ *3 1 

Ij ^ VjO 

ft o 

-+ft 4-> CO 


CO ^ 

O «M 

3 o 

.2 -M 

CJ 

0 ) «4-< 

ft ® 

E3 O 

B T 
£££ 
O « 
T3 
4H C3 
O cd 


O 43 

JZ 

4i 




4J 

©3 co 
cd 


r© ■*"? 

4-J cd 

• ^4 

u +» 

co 

cd 

4> 

43 4) 

4-4 4-4 

o o 

> > 


I 

4> 

_Q 

CO 

t^s 

cd 

©3 

»© 


o in 


l +—> • 

10 OK° 

co .ft 


4) t-i 


t- 

©ft 5 

jz a 

40 ft 
4 ft 
O 4> 

2 S 


43 

4-4 

O 
> 

>a 2 

4-> <U 

S3 43 
Cd i-ri 
0,03 
O 

(44 

° 43 
CO co 


fee 


£ «5 - 


co 

03 « 
©3 s- 
4) 

u -£ 

©3 (2 O 
S « 

* 

| ^ « 

O *—■ 

4-> • *S 

2 a o 
o 43 aa 

43 a *9 

co £3 O 


h 43 


>» 

U 

o 

4-4 

cd 

X) 

£3 

cd 


a t, 

O Cd 
£3 Cu 

i 

£3 

O 

£3 ^ 

.2 £3 O 

£3 ^ ^ 
ft 4H C! 

o « d 

Cm m W 


S3 & 

o a 

§ o 

O O 

• pH 
-4-» 

a 

S *> c3 
cd ^4 
£3 43 
43 J3 

CO 4-4 

c« ° 


4) C 1 )- 

^ O 


CO 

p 

S£ 


CA 




CTJ 4 J 
Gp> 

O T3 


os 2 

la 8 
g 3 ® ps 

° "T3 
o _ C3 
to cd ^ 

tH Q« 

43 -ST co 
O 43 

' _j • ^H • pH 

a c h 

43 £3 O 


I 

CO 

>> 2 
c 03 

2 5 3 

2 S ft 

a “■« 

s s s 

CZ 4_3 
® W ^ 

O I, •pH 

X 43 t_, 
ft bC 43 
CO 'ft ft 
£3 
1-0 


*c £3 

Oh © 

£3 

■ti ft 

ft £3 o 

^ ° 3 

S3 a 

2 « 
M . CO 

3 f- 

W -h *h 

O 2 cd 

£3 a a 


« 

43 


O 

Eh 


H 

3 

P3 
h«J 
O 

44 

ft 
® £M 
g Oh 
H < 
03 
H 

ft 


c3 

ft 

O 

-4-> 

«4H 

O 

O 


bo 

a 

--4 . 

4-4 

cd o 

U > 


>H 

03 

4^ 

a 

►4 

03 

ft 

04 

o 

B 

H 

<3 

Q 


I t4 CO 

£3 O «3 

f4 ^ j- -t3 

43 Oh 43 

£3 

ft‘~ J2 £3 

cd ^ 43 
T3 ^ pt 0 
co £3 ^ o 
43 O *44 


CO 

a 

* 

o 


44 • 

£ -S3 to -d 

rv -ft ft O ft 

ft 4 J bo 4J cd 


O 

H4 

EH 

-< 

EH 

w 

CJ 


3 

B 

Eh 

h<3 

E4 

m 


-ft co 03 
OOt- 
w »£5 

•v • 

2 -ft j 

H - 1 r 3 aft 

03 ft U 
■-H . - 
C- 

- • «t 

*o 


co Ci 
co 

43 =§ 
43 ft 
Oh -h 
C /2 i—I 


»o 

H - 

iO 1—1 

ft3 

w 6 

03 


rH 03 03 jr! 
1-1 2 
co CO 
£ £ 
c5 c3 

ft ft 


£ 


GO O CO O 
0< CO 00 G3 
i—l 03 


U U 


rft 

u 


rt *ft £i 

03 5 03 


bo 

1 ? g 

add 


CO 

cd 

ft 

'd 

43 

£33 


Jt3 

CO 

00 

Hft 


co 

► 

►3 


O. 03 

O ^ 

CJ 






































































































* 






















































































204 


The Annals of the American Academy 


2 

*< 

* 

K 

P 

s 

H 


to 

11 
fc 1 

i-s 

■ M 


.1 



PS 

o 

p 

<1 P 
H PS 


K 


w 

PS 

p 

P=4 

S (H 


P 

<5 

fc 

O 


« i 4) i 

•a 

§ s 


Ph tH 

o o 


3 * g ** 5 


Si o 

«*- cd 


e Js 

4 


£ 4} 4 S 

3 1^-2 

w .X >> cS 
add 

a a‘a 

o >» O 

4 +j P 


V 

PS 

H 


«+H «*H O 

Si 


CO 
4) 

H « 

£ EQ 
■3 o 
o « 

S’-g 

P ,£ 
X 4) 


d O cj 


O^b 

•Hi ^ • M 

H-> 1-> 

^ ej 
P 

«« a ^ 

§ ii 
J£ 


g a 

w g 
4) P 

3 8 


CO 

4> 

i-> 

aJ 

be 


05 

j*j 


o 

<5 

> 

« 

O 

2 


p 

H 

Eh 


£ 

O 

i’S 

<X) ^ 
•rt *"^h 

8 

o3 

> 


CO 

£ ^ 
Q b 

Si 133 

g i 

rQ -P 

a£ 

p 

£ 8 
- o 

«4-H 

0) 

m 


i 


g >> 

2 iQ 


rt • * 

a -d 
a 2 

O 4 
4 4> 

«a 

>» * 

2 HJ 
TO 

Ph P 
P 

5J. 

PQ o 


Si 

O 

P 

O 

i-> 

fl 

41 

> 

P 

O 

4 

4) 


3 

a 

) ^4 

Si 

Ph 


S, es 

DO • *"* 

*> 4 
Pb 41 

£ & 
X to 


4> 

4 


a 


O XI 
4 4> 
u 
4 

>>« 
H-> PS 

a « 
clx 
p 

PQ o 


4 

4 


a 

8 hP 

O X 

4 4 

■U 

4 

>> o 

H-> PS 

2 03 

&.« 

PQ O 


P 

o 

<0 

• H 

> 

O 

Si 

Ph 


P 

O 

• r-« 

CO 

• »-* 

> 

o 

s I 

O o 

:§ z 


Si > 
4 % 

Ph g 

g| 

O 4-> 

0) *g 

53 * 

to 
4 

i-> 

. 03 
OS ifl 

•p rs x 

P X 4 
fe C3 H-l 

o 2 -»-> 

ta d *2 
0 


co * 

4-^ *" 

a^«a 

Sip 


P to 

° & 
P X 
4 

£ *o 
*C «0 


P 

4 

5 t 


P 

O 


4 r a 

| g| J 

4 3 3 T3 


4 

i_4 

13 

o 


o 

u 

P, 

co 

O >i 

X P 

a ^ a 
0 0.0 
O -H 

U 


§ 

• *—* 

co 

• m 
> 
o 

Si 

d Ph 

32 o 

j3£ 

s 



































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


205 




CO 








c3 












o< 




4-> 




CO 

M 



CD 



CO 

. 


-d 

cd 

4) 


.a 

p 

cr 

O 

CO 

41 

Fh 

4ft 

CO 

C$ 

4> 

0 ) 

P 


o 

4ft 


<1 


o 4> 

ft a 

• H 
> 
T3 

p 

P -d 
p 
P 
P 

.2 ^ 

■e o 

Q o 

£ *55 

P iy 

O Fh 

U P 


A ^3 

OT ft 
6 to 

Fh ^ 

4> « 

sf 

CO 

• I 

p 

O 


*3 £ 

.*2 
►O ni 
Fh A 

P 


P 

CD 

"d 

• ^ 

co 

cd 

P-3 


cd 

t- 

cd 

cd 

C/2 

CD 

ft 


w 

>» 

P 

*d 

o 

CO 


CD 


o ft 4-> 
-* P 

•t? •*■> 

£ C/2 


>s 

a 
• ^ 
Fh 

ft 

CD 

ft 


4> 

4) 


a 


o -o 

CD 4) 
h-> 

4) 

>>« 
4-> cfci 

53 P 
ft.t3 
P 

>>* 
PQ o 


o 

ft 

p 

-d 


s-> u 

O O 

*+h 

CD 

P © 
+■> >“ 1 

CO 

fh -O 
o p 
**-■ p 

CO 

>» -M 

p .2 
-d *C 

-M 

o *23 

cm nd 


* flj 

qq r 

V «£ 

|S 

o w 
o >» 
O P 

«s 73 

o O 

o 

o -d 

O CD 


*d 

p 

p 

P 

w ►? 
p ft? 
rrt P 

3J 

b ^ 

a o 

•? CO 
pt • <-* 


r> r ■ - 1 ^ ^ 

CO tp ft > 


2 £ 
fc.2 

I- 

§ b 
©-I 

CN 

2 ^ b 

o ° a 

© a 

© o ‘g 

H O ft 


o 

o 

«5 



Fh 

O 

H-> 


H-> 

P 

4> 

ra 

4ft 

P 

H-> 


o 

P 

p 

CD 

0 ) 

*"0 

4D 

VI 

4D 

nd 

• f-H 

Fh 

P 

1 

"tfl 

<v 

C/2 

CO 

4) 

t . 

CD 

CD 

M 

PU 

p 

rH 

P 

> 


Fh 

o 


p 

4> 

cn 

C/2 


Fh 

O 

P 

Fh 

CD 

> 


CD 

CD 


a 

a ft 

o -d 

CD 4) 

H-> 

4) 

-t-> 5P 

53 P 

ft.-p 

PQ o 


41 

4> 


a 

o 

8 3 

CD 

>^5P 
t, P 

ft-* 


,b**H 

PQ O 



PQ fa 


p 

o 

• fH 

4-J 

p 

CD 

> 


go 

Fh 

QD 

CD 

m 

o 


p 

p 


>> 

p 

a 


p 

4> 

a 

CD 

CD 


Fh 

O 

**h 

co 
>> 
P 
nd 

»o 

CO 


•t3 P 

a -§ 

.2 a-g 

o ° :a 

.Su ^ 


I 

p 

p 

o 

CD 

Fi 

O 

*4-1 

o 

cvc 

"d 

P 

p 


p 

a 

» fH 

Fh 

ft 

4> 

Fh 

o 


CD 4D 
4J ft 

5 >> 

«J -fJ 


tn 

>» 

P 

'd 

»p 

cw 

4-J 

cn 

SJ 

®3 4ft 

• H J 

-d *< 

P 


P 

Q 


> 

O 

Fh 

ft 


o 























206 


The Annals of the American Academy 


05 

* 

< 

PS 

P 

B 

H 


oo 

>> 

Q b 

£_ P 

S a 

a £ 

B 

£ 8 
£ 
9? 

pq 


j, 

a 

• -H 

H 


I ® | 

5 g ! x 

5 ® pj 

0 S § $ g 

h B jQ g 

Q ^ PtH K Ph 


B u 
< 


fc 

o 

05 

PS 

w 

PQ 


2Q 


« r , 

8 I 

sll 


PQ 


H '^3 

• s £§ 
4> S 

4-> 2 

O cz 
> £ 

>> a 

4-> « 

u 
c$ 

O. 


<D 


• s t5 

4) P 
*o 
43 

f* 

a 


o 

> 


o 

QJ 


n-c • 

O >1 


g.^ s 

- o .3 

f * 1 4 ) 


O 43 

<D “5 


©4 


o 

> 


■bs 

Bhi-<|c» 

ti_ «h-i 

o o 

f 1 


I, <« c 
■3 o .3 
a 

43 vC. 
w §s. 43 
4; r L 

3^0 

M* _ £> 

0) O ^ 

a a 

■5 --3-2 

a 
£ 


p H 

• •—< o 


4) 

— 

o 

t> 


03 

+-> 

O 


t4_ a 

° .a 

_ *o 

^ 8 
©4 Ph 


03 

PS 

w 

S 

o 

(-( 

C/2 

PS 

w 

« 


I 

43 

4) 


• CO 

• 

• a 

B 

P 

B 

• 

o 

p 

-4-> 

a 

a 

o 

43 


: sa 

d 

o 

4-> 

O 


o 

o 

P 

>» 

>* 

Preci 

man 


• H 

u 

• H 



P$ 

o 

a a 

| £ 

s a 


w 

PS 

« 

B 

H 

PS 

Pu, 


fc 

o 

H-l 

H 

X 

O 


05 

W 


O 

*< 

> 

PS 

o 

03 

B 

*< 

* 

«< 

3 

P 

C 

H 


£ 

O 

HJ 


-a 

00 43 
43 -5 

-H ^ 

° pH 


fl 

C$ 

a 

c$ 


43 

43 


a 

a . 

o -o 

43 4) 

-t-J 

43 

>>« 
■M SQ 

3 b 

Ph ."3 
p 

PQ o 


43 

43 


a 

a 

o 

43 


+3 

t; .a 
s-S 

P- to 

>>’§ 
PQ .3. 


s- 

o 

-a 

43 

03 

> 

O 

<- 

Ph 

(h 

43 

C 

P 

p 

a 

p 


i 

o , 
(-1 
P- 

Ph 

P 

JT 


O B 
p 6 
.2 * 

■s ° 

p p 

a-3 

cgp* 

p p 3 

P O O 

• F— 

.SP " off 

S b 3 

O -O O 


d c$ 5 ^ 

^ *o 

u 

oT •§ 

4) P 

^3 P 
■3 « 

a M 


>> 

d 

a 


>» 

.. p 

a^ a 

8p ^ 

«4-« i—« 

0 ) O «3 

.1 S ’S 2 

tn Ct3 Oh 43 
Ph V »P 


to 

>> 

Q b 

tH B 

a a 

s& 

p 

^ 8 
■ o 

«41 

0) 

PQ 


i 

a 

• 1-4 

Eh 


P 

o 


> 

o 

to a, 
68 ^ 
oo O 
P $r 
P ^ 

w 


p 

p 

p 


p 

o 

hQ 


p 

o 

• pH 

CO 

> 

o 

«-H 

Ph 
43 ^ 

P o 

•p 55 






























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


207 


cd 

a 

• pH 

Si 

O- 

o 

Si 

o 

Cu 

co 

>> 

G 

‘O 


o> 

Si 

'3 

cr 

Si 

<u 

g 

o 

£ 


o 

4> 


o 

Si 


r-H 

O 

<4- 



0> 



X> 


a 



cd 



4-» 

T3 



jj 


CD 

cG 


CD 

JZ 


r-H 


CO 

hC 


Si 

o 

4-> 

0) 

J- 

o 

4-4 

cd 


o 

> 

S 


o a 
0 be 


V 


co 


o O 
> o 
o 

^ r-T 
4-> ^ 

lg> 

*o *'3. 

O u 

fl) 

©* a> a> 






G 

G 

O 


c/2 


g 

<v 

r3 

• H 

co 

55 

Si 

Ph 



G 





G 





<U 





O qi 





4—* 





■g CO .t? 





G Sh g 





<u « p 

pH O r4 





co G 

<L> 0) 

p-l 


o 

o 


-a -g 

c p 

g «> 
• 

+J CO 

G <u 
a> Jh 
r3 Ph 

• H | 

cd a? 
a; o 

&H • pH 


«4-H CD »—4 

o 0) cd 

a> S .2 
£ u .SP 

4-> rj Si 

a« ° 
I-d^ 

§ « co oi 

•g a »i 

>> 8 P 2 

*2 SC O o 

Cd H-4 • pH 

4-> 

4—' i • pH 

..pH 

^ C 0) 


SH 1 , 

o 8 

G £ 

.2 *3 

-t-> P _: 
a G ^3 
«u g a> 
o +-> 

O o 
0 ) 
5G 
>> G 


<D 

55 


a; 


G 


O 

4> „ 

CX G P 

C/2 &< 3 


a 

o ^ 
o £ 

>» 8 

tJ *g 

c5 G 

>>‘2 

PQ G 


4> 0> 

a ^ 

CS 4-1 

O 

G « 

i a) 


o JS 
0 > ■—* 
co qd 

tc 

.a s 

> 2 
0 ) ^ 


a vu 
© 
A \ 


J-p 

a 


cd 

• pH 

O 

o> 

CX 

co 


V ^ «+l< 
0 ) -P e3 

.sS s 


a 

a 

o 

o 


G 

O 


G 

0 > 


G 

o 

o 

44 

ID 

4-4 

G 

<U 

^ r^ 

be 

>> 

>» 

G2 

cd 

H 

-4-> 

> 4J 

G 

O -H 

O 4—> 

o 


15 

o 

G 

T3 4> 

0> 

o •- 
G -a 

G 

'S 

nd 

G 

o 

G 

4) • G 

o 

p 2 « 

<1 

o 

G 

G 

o 

Q 

G 

> 

r-H <H 

CG S 

ph a 

PQ 

G S +4 

9 o 
9 ° « 
O O eG 


-3 

G 

G 

>> 

G 

2 


CO Si i 
Si O G 

G ^ & 

O 

^ >> g 

G .Q 


o< 


, I ( • H 

'G 4-J 

G 
G 


co O j^> 

*j -5 -g -H 

iu -2 a 

S2 S? 

G *> 

rP 0> 

2 a g 

w ji <u G= 
rt pin d2 yp 


o 

G 

be 

G 


CO 

Si 

<L> 

Pu 


G 

G 

be 




G 4J 
■g X 
o cia 

<V 4J 

g o 

.a £ 



CD 

CD 


£ 


G 

S 

CO 


G 

G 

G 

4-> 










































2 08 


The Annals of the American Academy 


< 

* 

< 

PS 

a 

w 

H 


93 

03 

Q b 

n g 

-O .9 

a£ 

£ 2 

& 
«4-< 

s 

CP 


1 

a 



5 £ s 
Q w 


o 


H 

H 

Ph 

o 

£ 


m 

ps 

a 

i 

i—i 

m 


Ph 

a 

P5 

a 


o 

£ 


c 

o 


4) 

A , 


PS 

o 


►< 

3 


3 s 

H Ph 

9 | 

a s? 
a o 

PS 

°-o 


a 

JE 

73 

4H *M 

a « 
v i - 1 

."2 ^ 

8 8 

Ph > 


02 

a 

M 

o 

fc 

S 

> 

PS 

o 

2 

< 

* 

i 

Q 

H 

H 


* 

tS 


73 
43 

y; • 


a 

c3 

8 


S 50 

8 a 
£ *JS 

•s hj 

l' E 


>i .2 

•M 4-> 

is c 

g. £ 

>. § 

— u 


m O _ 

-So 
w o 

8 +, ti 

S J 

O V 4) 
O 

4) 

u H g 

5 < .o 

HJ 


A O fe 
hh O 

fj «<-i 

’•5 5 
o <B 
a ST® 
.52 a 

ti.8 fi 
Oh-S ' 3 

<S Ig^ 

§ >> 


t» a os 

>> s? >> 

c3 .2 
73 b073 


C -S6?> 
o -5 ° 9 


43 


bo 


a •>» 

• — 1 ^2 

1 8 
-m era 

a © 

s a 

8 a 
>>‘£ 
i i 

g ft 

Oh A 

>> o 
CP § 


4> 

H-> 

C3 

73 

-3 

a 

ei 

° d 

8 -B 

-O -J3 

bo <3 

43 ft 

■M ^ 

K ^ 
43 P 
C O 


73 

bo 3 

.a o 




I §2 


$ 2 . 

i-H ^ 

a g> 
8 o 

* a 


>» 

-o . 

43 

Hf) 43 

^ H-> 
OP H-> 
**1 • ^ 

s a 

sS 


93 

0 ) 

4J 

cS 

73 


o 

4> 

a 

93 


93 

| . 

Q & 

*-H g 

£ .1 

| £ 

2 | 

ti 

• ^ 

H 


93 

>> 

cS 

73 

*o 


c3 w 
03 

93 4) 

C4 

b *j 
- 8 ^ 


oS 

73 

o3 

> 

4> 


.S 

'S 

Oh 

a 

03 

ffi 

4> 


73 

4) 

93 

Ui 

O 

73 

a 

43 


43 

93 

4> 

43 

£ 


8 

te 

73 

• 

73 

O 

c3 

O 


J <HH (ft 
■8 ° 8 

■g-5 -g’l 

a o s a 

a — *c 

43 O, 

a S *j 43 

O <3 *-h 
■p « o 

•J3 *4 

43 . »Q 

Oh H3 T3h 93 

-O 43 <5 73 




































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


209 


w 

>> 

oS 

T3 

00 


tn 

>. 

ci 

T3 

O 

CO 


<U t~i 

a -2 
o **- 

to £ 

"d g 

3 .sp <u 

bfl cw 
0> 


CO 


JB * 

>> ■§ 

| J J 

^ 4> +3 


o 

Ch 

p 

CL, 


l 


l 


5R co co 
g B a) 

S-££ 

>i«2 ^ 

1 

® Si 

8 to -M +i 
^ 0 
> 


.. a 

S-< 4> 4> 

&TJ 03 


a 

4> 

*6 
• H 

■s 8 

• pH 
8 
ft 


& 


•s §4 s 

a -S 73 

g •£ >> O 
a cs o 
m O. Q "5 

8 w> « 
•h a « . 


t- 4) 

4> £ 

£ £ 




>» 

ce 

I 

"C 

a 


a 

8 


4> 

> 
• pH 

4-» 

3 

4> 

4) 

M 

4> 


<2 -M 

&h a 


o 

8 



o 

8 

•M 

4-3 

• H 

a 

a • 

O to 
« & 
b 8 

a * 

>»*3 
« § 


Cw 

«+H 

o 

• pH 

i3 o 

C3 V 

§ a 

0> 

O CO 
. ^ 

0) 

4-> 

4-> 

>>p0 

• pH 

5 5 

| 


g H h 

•g 2 (3 

I a.a 
fc 8 


t- 

a 


to 

4) 


to 
>» «S 

4-3 -i ^ 

|g 

&H 3 


to 

tH 

o 

£ 

4J 

£ 


a5 

a 
• ^ 

*p 

t- 

e3 

O 


o 

£ 


s 

© 

-% 

Q 

W 

4J 

*H 

o 

fc 


o 

* 

© 


c 3 

a 

o 

to 

oj 

to 

Q 


a 

o 

bo 

4 > 


15 





































210 


The Annals of the American Academy 


cfi 

4 

<1 

* 

« 

Q 

a 

H 


co 

a 

Q 




P< rH 

is J 

3 £ 

a 

£ 2 
■ o 


4 

m 


J, 


w 2 
a a 

■—i o 

• pH 

be.-n 
a +-> 

TJ Cu 

4) 

4 be 
4 c 

a *a 


a 

CO 


ta 


. u 
o 

a **- 

rs >j 

*-> a 
Ph -a 



43 . 

a co 

a 4 
<u \n 

.2 § 
CO S 

O O 
4 

3 tS 

4 a 

o -2 
o +J 

rH Cv3 


tf 

o 


2 es 
2 « 


w 

a 

a 

a 

w 

a 

P-l 


a 

<5 

S5 

o 

I—I 

H 

a 

O 


a 

a 

-a 

• i—< 

CO 

4) 


4 

a 

o 

5? 


4) 

a 

o 

£ 


a 

a 

+j 

be 

a to 

ia co 
as 4> 
o — 
a 

4> a 
•43 a 

t- 

a o 
Ca O 
a P 
o 

&H 


2 >> 
O 4-> 

a T's 

&H 

4 ) 

> 

o • 
bo a 
o 


o 


o 
o 
o 

o 
o o 


4 

jy 

ID 


CO 


i 


a 


CO 

.2 

"f- 

a 

.2 

*n 

a 


03 

g 

hH 

u 

& 

3 

a 

H 

t> 

a 

o 

03 

a 

< 

* 

a 

a 

a 

H 


£ 

O 

ffl 

I T3 

co a 
41 s 

• rH . 

4 rv, 

a w 
a 
4 
a 


•- 2° 
t- a 

a* "3 1 

s- 

m 8 

5 2 

«+-« a 
a 

-a 

CO « 
.2 co 

a ^ 
a >s 

4 2 
a a 

> 2 


4) -a 

t-> a 

o a 

44-H • ■ 

4 be 

«■§ § 


-a ^ 


,5} >»+j 

3-° & 


>> >> ° 
b is £ 

3. 2 g 

3 §.•“ 


CO 

41 

4 


2 

2 

o 

4 

►» 

-t-J 

f- 

a 

a 

£*■» 

CP 


o 

4 

4 

•*-> 

4 -> 

a 

2 

o 

4 

4 

> 
• ^ 

a 

o 

4 

x 

W 


~ 

a 

a- 


CO 
►> 
a . 

Q b 

u 5 

% 2 

2£ 

a 

s s 

• pH 

H 


1 P4 

pH O 

.-2 O 

£ 3 
#< 

>>° 
a Tft 


2 

.2 4 0 

a ■+-> *+-> 
a a 4 

co a a 
a a g 

4 w 

Ph 


a 4 ) 

3, P 

be 

C v* 

as 

4 .jH 

8 3 

4 

a t, 

CO § 

a 

.3 5 

a 

H X! 







W fcH 

>> O 

4 









42 









cn 









>s 




a ! 
a 

• pH 




§ a 

w 0 

a 

-0 

0 




a 

^-> 

0 • 



f —4 +? 

$% 

rH 

C /3 



CO 

O 

$-1 

o 3 

u 

* 

a 

Q • 

OJ . 

W 

C /3 


a <y 

-3 4 
43 H 

4 

5 fl 

0 



a 

0 

• pH 

-H> 

O 

43 

a 

0 

4 

a 

a 

4 

a 

a 

X 

4 

•M 0 

•»-< **-H 

^J8 

city 

fore 

pS 

CO 

-M 



Ul 


Eh 

H 



P 












































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


211 


CO 

a 

o 


V 

a 

to 

a 

• H 

ts 

.a 

a 

o 

£ 


■*-> d 4-> 

H 4> H 
CS d sj 

& a a 

4^ 

«4-l 

O -M O 
co 

f ^ 

o «8 £ a 
<u *o * § 

^ 3 fl -g 

r-H > .5 CX 


.A T5 .JL 

'S g-o 
a a 

S’S s 

ya +j 

h o g 
o <u « 

«41 

M g 
TS| & 

fl ^ T3 

.2 g .a 

Ct, ^ 

O -d «2 


**i. b 
<y «2 

fcH 

a 

c5 

.2 «3 

• a 

r-t 

J§ o* . 

~a a> 

• .2 T3 
CO -l_) .fh 

<u a « 
ti « g 
=3 u ^ 
*d <v Ph 



H3 


d 


a3 

4J 

4-> 

d 

d 

a> 

OJ 

X) 

-d 

'S 

'K 


<u 

s 

& 

a 

a 


a 

o> 


tfl 

<V 

a 


tH 

c3 

a. 


^ a 

t- o> 

a > 
a a 
o 

& ° o 

a 8 2 
to g 

• pH •» 

«J £ 3 

g 

a .-a 
g a 

»i 

PQ o 


-o 

0) 

.b , 
cr 

CD 

f-i 


a 

o 

o 


8 

a 


(-i 

o 

a 

o 


fc g . 
d.S >> 

2 5c« . 

«? ’E m 

- <D 

* IS 

fa O *2 
O • •-! 


a s 


a 


CO 

<D 

<d 


a 

a 

o 

o 

►» 

-M 

(h 

d 

P* 


Oj 

d 

o 

• pH 

i 

CO 

<u 

kb 

d 

o 

o 

t- 

■m o 

d V 

° 3 


a 


g «l 


■e o 


o 

• ««* Cj 

§ 

« O g 
a> o* S 

a> <n a 

t- 5 V 

o 

<s 

cd d 
-2 3 

o 


3 

a 

a> 

co 

co 

<5 


i . •> i 

g|*3 

u § 

O 
o 


u 


»H 

o 


<d 


3 .2 

fl) 

s ^ 

s w 
o 

<L> "X3 


0) 

•*-> 

5 

m 


•• cj 

3 § 

ci co 

0) CO 


w r N T ih 

wU-fi +J H 


a 
0) 
co 
a> 

b 

a 

b 

°rt • 

CO 
>» 
oi «s 

c3 l> 
■o fl, 

“5 .£ 




a 

o 

"So 

fl 

• 

rd 

CO 

o3 


c3 

• H 

a 

&0 

b 


CO 

<u 


CO 

d 

o 

o 

co 


60 

d 

• rH 

a 

o 






























212 


The Annals of the American Academy 


0) 

+-> 

o 

> 

4J 

CO 

0) 

it> 

• pH 

w 


P ph" 

8*S 

bq 

s ^ 

eg • r—j 


i 

a 

£ 

5 

u 

o 


ci 


c« 


9 a 
> o 

<u 

+3 co 


a 

-Q 

<u 

^3 


>» S> 
■ > 


p 

8 


*S * 

c_, P 

4 sc 

^ -a 


a p 


4 

$ ° 
H 

§1 

s^s 


3 4> 

• O 
o 

2 ft 

^ *q 

4 

CO CO 


4) 

■s a 

Cg 

fl 

_^s CO 

4-^ • pH 

•c ^ 

o r 
c3 2 

a 8 


O £ 

4) a 
h P 
a <u 

Ph^ 

go 


+J p 

CO fl 

P H 

a a 

9 

$ a 

ts ’a 

• pH * 

a 
a 

o 
o 


p 

o .2 


q 

8 
• pH 

P 
cr 

4 

fcH 

co 
4) 

4) -M 

J3 P 

is > 


a 


41 

Ph 

tC 

P 

> pH 

C$ 

d 

a 

o 

p 


4> 

4-> 

O 

> 


S 

» -■ 'i 

Ph 


Second 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 


4 

4 

4 


4 

4 

4 


O 

O 

O 


rP 

rP 

HP 

.P 

4 

4 

4 

P=H 

to >, 

to 

to >> 


r- 'A 

•fa 'fl 

.a *2 


pa o 

ptH O 

P*H O 


4 

fcH 

O 

a 

fcH 

o 

o 

£ 

H-> 

p 

4> 

-P 


to 

H-> 

4) 

• pH 
fH 

4-> 

X 

• pH 

q 

>1 

X) 

4) 

H 

e3 

H-> 

O 

pH 


>5 

PS 


W) 

p 

• ^H 

4R 


fcH 

4 

q 

fcH 

O 


CO 

Ph 

p 

O 



P 

W 

GO 

s 

« 

O 

Z 

W 

P 

o 


p 

4> 

Ph 

O 


co PP 

a < 

2 CO 

£ '5b^ 

4) 4) “ 
H fcH 4) 

► ° ® 

^ P HJ 


CO 

fcH 

4> 

-*-> 

O 

t> 


q o 

4> 

P 

-2 o 
U+j 
8 
ya 


a 

p 

O* 


a 

* 

< 

« 

Q 

W 

H 


q 

4) 


* 

o 

W 


8 
• pH 

4 

P 


> 


4 4) 
CO _TH 

o ’S 


4) 

.23 

q 


co .a 

fcH H-> 

4 03 

4— 1 • IH 

•as 

4» a 

H >> 

p c§ 
*0 Ph 

4> 4) 
Jh P 

Ph h 


£.3 

§ p 

TT 

4-» S 

oj P 

* . 
.2 aa -g 
be o 2 
4) efi q 

« W j 

4> 

. • H-> 

co q o3 
1 § £ 
O p 8* 
> CT « 


I 

q 3 ’ d O 
pp O 

q ta o 



o3 

P 

O 

N 


o3 

• pH 

P 

fcH 

_0 


c3 


HP .2 « 
p £ 


B 

H 


q 

8 c 

. J rt 

co 'o ~ 
h 4 P 

O q o 

• PH 


P 

hP 


c3 


^ a 

c$ 

^H f. 

c3 S 
Ph H 
4 O 
C/2 > 




a 


4 


4 

2_) co 
be 
Ph fcn 


o 

q 

ct 

O 

U 




































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


213 


nS A 

■3 w 

3 

cr 1 p 

4) ft 

ft 4) 

42 ^ 
O 41 

> 45 
d 

>,.9 

•■g | 
•! § 
s 5 


aj o w 
u v 42 


O 

a 


d 

r*> .2 

c | 

.23 'I* 

8 ^ 4) 

'' 


42 

O 
43 
• 42 


O 

43 . 

u nS 

$ 

'Ti b 

x *3 sn 

d d »h 

o crta 


+-> 42 
o o 
o *3 

.3 13 
42 ns 

.2 o 
| 8 
4-i ^ 

2 & 
ta *c 
0 

13 ‘5* 

S a 

42 c« 


42 
■ft 

O 

> 

•ft 
to 
V 
43 
bfi 
• ^ 

43 
nS 

a 

d 

"d 

42 

3 a 

a 8 


are 

on 


43 

4> 

rrj 

bo 

d 

1 

tc 

5 

np 

4) 

9 

d 

s 

-4-» 

‘S 

42 

+j 

• H 

u 

a 

cS 

ns 

41 

■4> 

CO 

O 

4> 

w 

tn 

^>4 

4*3 

43 

d 
• ^ 

4> 

43 

'd 

5 

P 

P 

4) 

■*-> 

-4-J 

Pi 

+-> 

42 

43 

d 

d 


ns 
•*-> a 
£ § 

«3 8 42 
43 M .y 

■g'S 3 

« §5 



42 

aj 

O 

> 


s 

43 

DO 

• H 

w 



O 0) 

■ft -ft 
03 

nS 

4 ns 
,b d 
p - 

S' 3 

Jh 

TJ 

<U J3 

o3 

t* 

co a; 

ft -ft 
42 CO 

4J * ft 

o bo 


d 

o 

'-4 

o3 


ft d 


42 

ft 

a 

>» 

42 


1 


d 
a) 

iB J3 

d £ 

_ d ^ 

d 2 43 
a \P £3 

‘.ft d ^ 

43 P 

O P . 
P « bO 

42 rt 

* °*g 

‘SP V 

44 d 


a -A 

£ 4 
~ 42 
o 

t-i 

C4 


tO 


o 3 

P‘~ 

^ to co 
d d 
d 43 ^ 

Pi .ft 

o 

^ i3 H 

'S & . 

*H 4-> 

•3 43 o 
2 , « —> 
ST d 


CO 43 

o3 -ft 
43 d 

ns 
S3 ns 

■ft d 

P § 

> 42 


d a) 

„ d 43 

a o -g 


a; 1 

zl • rH 

r^H ^ 

* a 

-M c> 

b 

c3 3 

a, 


a> a> *-< 

■ft ft 

P ° 

C CO CO 

8 P d 

M ft,. 2 


ns A 

2 d 

- P 


4) 


ft d 

4J .ft 


.2 (1 


4) 


« 2 


d 

4) d 2 
+j ad 
d H S 3 

35 « I 






4 -> 

4 > 

« 

0 

ti-i 

d ^ 

*ft j_j 

O -g 

>> 3 

w 

4 -> 

c • 

CO 

(h 

13 

ns 

V 

£*i 

P-t d 

h O 

M) 

d 

4 -> 

O 

n 3 c 
d cs 

cj S 

rl O 

5 ^ 

• ft 

> 

0 0 

H a 

0 13 


o 

n . r* 

•g.‘43 

Ot 1 4-J 

o 

f" CM 

O 

4> 

42 » 

4J C -- . 

3 <y 43 

ft 4J ^ 
ft 


2 

9 '£ 


fi cj 


CAJ 

^ to is § 
4) 4> w -2 

£■229 

^-p « " 

5 9^ 

9 2 

8 43 
42 


9 


;>> * 


a 

CO 

4 4> 


bO • 
d >> 
•-« •*-> 

O d 


Ph P > ft 




















214 


The Annals of the American Academy 


8 


V 

4-> 

o 

> 

4-> 

8 

r3 

bo 

• pH 

w 


v 

4-> 

o 

> 

4-> 

03 

<U 

'M 

s 


a 


8 

o 

> 


y 

I- 

*4-4 

.« o 

y 

4-> vO 

o 

> *o 
CO 
•p 

CO 0) 

4) > 

. n • pH • 
§8 « 
W 8 8 


-d 

a 

o 

a 

4) 

m 


02 

.£3 

PM 


4) 

y 

• pH 

o 

M 

y 

4-> K* 
03 >s 

.fa 'g 
Pm o 


a> 

y 

• pH 

O 

.3 

y 

44> K* 
02 

fi 73 

j.- 1 a 

Pm o 


y 

y 

• pH 

O 

p4 

O 

« >» 

3 

Pm o 


a 

• pH 

O 

441 

c3 

a 

y 

w 


>> 

rO 

'S -2 

.fa y 
eC *g 

4-> *3 

O 03 

tf *6 


y 


a 

u 

O 


a 

y 

.3 


C i 3 

S-° §• 

co + Cl 
O w 
•J3 +i 
|.2§ 

8-g a 

y .2 _. 

,-73 -5 

>»,o /fa 

-o 3 £ 
tj w 

y 

' (4 

o 


be 

3 

pH 

a w 
_ _ a 3 
a*5b© 


8 


o .9 


Q 

H 

co 

O 

h) 

tj 

P 3 

O 

S3 

W 

PM 

o 


a 

y 

CM 

O 


03 

f- 

y 

4-> 

o 

E> 


75 o 

y 

03 rt 

-2 © 

>. < • pH 

° U 
<a 

• ph 

’Is 

3 

a 


y 44> 

4-> 03 

«3 3 

£ a 

& 03 

W fc 
w "3 

.3 > 

>»"d 
■e c3 

03 C3 
& . 

X y 
y ^ 
c3 y 

W *3 


■ 4-4 

c3 o 

eg « 
i - 

C3 CO 
>> 2 
■s a 

ft 

, y 
.fa -s 

y 44> 
-3 

+j 73 
y 

h 

c3 

'y 3 

(U O 

t: 4-> 


c3 


3 h 

* $ 
►» 

■5 ca 

• pH 

* S 

«4-H 

73 s_ 
y 

11 

II 

o 


co to c< a> 
■ H « §3 
a o £ ^ 

O > t! 3 

•pH bp-, 3 

■fa y £» ° 
03 fa tn 

is o rt 2 

.22 a a 3 

Eub >» § 

y =44 a 3 
*4 w g 3 


03 —I 

y 73 


^ « w w 

■3 •§ 8 £ 

o’ y y 
y fa -g 

H ti oj +3 


I 

to 

CO 

^ >> 

y o 

■5 is 

M 8 

^ -c 

§ « 

O j_ 

pi2 

&« 


O c3 

£3 

• »H 

.o a 

fa* y 

a sS 

^. i-i 

y 

**-i 

O 03 

y 

t ^ 
o ra 


X • i-h w 

^4-0 ? 

ft 

2 c3 2 
c/3 y -2 


u o 
J2 3 
y 

4-> 3 

£.2 

S 33 

B 

C3 CO 

• f—< 

,—n bO 

(>< y 

W P3 

V 4 

O 


i _• i 

03 -d -2 

■a s J 
2 » p 
+j <v 

CO Jh O 

c3 w 

—H CO 

J3-S 


ra p-* 
r" p 3 


fl 
2 o 


- S £» 
.-Q t. 

73 c3 
y 3 ft 

•§. 2.3 
8 *3 
2 J3 W -2 


1 


•d >s g 

8 -e-2 

- ft.a 

CO ^ — 

• p^ 

to w _ 

« .2 ed 

y jq 

^ o H 

E2 

3 bD fl 

a a ° 

M *H • r-4 

73 44> 

o 

0^6 
►> 3 a 


■ 

y 

<- 

ft 


03 


-o 

y 

73 

O 4-> 

y 03 

y C3 

(4 

52 -3 
^ 73 

2 g 
y 3 

4—3 

9 «T 

^ o 

C4H Ci 

O rH 


2 

£ 

« 

3 

M 

H 


73 

• pH 

Pm 

I 

l 

• pH 

y 

3 

6 

ej 

> 


3 

O 

• pH 

4-> 

3 

y 

> 

3 

O 

y 

y 

+4 

3 8 

3 M 

.a >» 

'S PQ 

3 


3 

O 




























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


215 


43 

-M 

o 

> 

4J 

CO 

43 

-d 

60 



o 43 
a -d 


43 

a 

• pH 

O 

-a 

o 

to ^ 

.fa "3 

Pn © 


43 

o 

• pH 

o 

-a 

a 

to >> 

.fa 'a 

Ph o 


>> fa 

-d O 

a> 

d3 -fa 

43 fl 
di 4-> 

d w 

4-> 

O 4) 

■h -d 

43 

s °.ti 

CO fl 

co -fa fl 
0) o 

h 'r 1 *h 

S is g 

Cj M J 

fc'-S o 


fl -2 
-d =3 

43 -Q 
60 4) 
c d5 
d 

fa a 

fl O 

0) -£» 
t-i -d 
rj 03 

ro o 

• pH 

co -*—> 

0) <V 

a-s 


fl 


d 


to 

CJ 4) 
43 U 

-fl 

43 43 
d "d 
co 
fl 

-d 

4) 


fl 

o 

to 

u> 

43 

a 


a 


*d 

a 
4* w 
0) 

!'- 


JL, fl 

5fl 

d ^ 

-m 

fa -»-> 

M 

.2 9 

-d 

« a 
60 ^ 
c 
2 


i -ij O 
43 co 2 
_Q f-c -H 

4- 1 fe 

[■fl ^ 

CO 

fl d S 

*d r? 4-» 

« g 
2.1 
fa "A 
+j fl< C 

fl <n d 


a 


oa 


o ce t! 


§ 

o 

f/J e^-H ►> 


l l 

<D c3 
^3 
03 £fl 
43 

fl 03 
43 . 

32 & 

CO f -1 
43 fl 

u q- 

•9 ^ 

03 .fa 
-fl 4) 
■H -d 

43 + J 
60 

fl 03 

A fa 

rfl -2 
43 43 


TJ 

43 

-g -fa 

fa CO 

^ • pH 

CJ f-H 
03 d 

^ o 
o +-> 
w o3 

0) 4—3 

*H W 

* *60 
T3 £ 
fl « 

*-S 

fl -h 

.2 g 

+J o 


i 4) 

.2 fa 

60 03 

03 -fl 
«h £ 


43 

-fl 


co 

-d 

43 

fl 

• pH 

+J 43 
co 43 

fl fa 
■ a 


a 


to 

f-l —4 

4) X) 
■M 43 
O fi 

-T 43 


■d 

43 

.fa 

fl 

cr 

43 

fi . 
CO 

CO ■fa 

• i—i o 

fl 'fl 
O -fl 

-fa 0^ 

fl -fa 

fH fl 

to d 

60 & 
43 03 

S Cfl 


'd 

43 

fH 

• H 

fl 

cr 

43 


fl 

o 

a 

Jh 


h O +J M 
-fa _fl jz -fl 
43 

fl 1 f- 1 
fl d 


> 03 

^ 43 


•2 13 

■fa 03 

.2 -fl 


■d 

fl ^ 

o 

60 A 

.a t 

2 a a a 

$ a 


a >i -fa 

S || 

S-so 

fl 43 A 

.2 -A H 

• PH i -> 


"f— 

fl 


fl 
43 
fl 43 


60 fa 

43 O 


z? 43 

tJ o 

d -d 
& 43 


! «* 


CQ £«, 

• pH ^ 

So 

(2 w a ]£ ?a 


fl CO -A 


43 

rS fl 

fa o 

43 . — 

co -fa 

43 fl 
U 43 

aog 
o ^ 

-2 a, 

13 c 

b'l 

a -s 

43 % 
43 ^ 
4-> fl 




















216 


The Annals of the American Academy 


o 

H 

I* 

% » 
t n r 
co < 
W 5 

o a 

w a 

H 

H 

O 


03 

+■> 

o 

> 

4-> 

to 

03 

X 

sc 

• r-i 

UJ 


0) 

h-> 

o 

> 

4-> 

CO 

03 

.d 

&0 

ffi 


0> 

-M 

o 

> 


a 

a 

s 


a « 

a o 

3 p 

X > 

o?3 
o J 

^ PH 

-p O 

CO 

Jj&S 

sc^ 

s s 

HH -Q 


H 

o 

H-( 

O 

w 

u 

Q 

t, 

O 

o 

w 

C/2 

Q 

£ 

H 

co 

g 

i—i 

pH 


T3 

fl 

O 

c 

0) 

C/2 


'd 

S -n * 
c3 'U (U 

4-> a o 

») O’S 
P y 2 

f-r 1 S x 

H id O 


co 

P 


03 

a 

• ^ 

o 

-d 

O 


•- a 
Ph o 


03 

a 

• r-H 

O 

X 

o 

4-> K.' 

CO p*i 
p 

•- d 
Ph o 


03 

o 

• 

o 

-a 

o 

w >» 
.£3 -g 
o 


CO 

W 

a 

*<• 


Z. H 

^ s 

° < 
fc« 

° * 
O 


H 

◄ 

H 

O 

PH 


03 

-d 

a 

53 s 

03 

03 1 

4_J V 

% SC 
■p c 
O c3 
P P 
p 

j_j c3 

O 

a g 
• ** 

2 t 

Q X 


I 

a3 

c-j 

a, 

r * l 

08 

<D 

b0 

a 

03 

h 

oj * 
>j 
CO d2 

o d 
d ° 

*4H 
03 

X 


d 

£ 


a 

o 

• ^ 
-P 

0) 

X 

a 

x 

a 
> ‘ 

cd 

"d 

4) 

bD 

d 

c3 

P 

(-1 

<1 


03 

p 

C 

a 

p 

o 

o 

is 

•P 

d 

03 

X 

St 

03 


II 

& 3 


Q 

H 

cn 

s 

« 

o 

I 

fc 

O 


d 

03 

a 

O 


CO 

Pi 

03 

-P 

o 

> 


T3 O 
03 

co a 

JO o 
U ‘3 


cd 


c$ 

p 

a 


03 O tJ 

•Id 1 

cr a 

03 

i w 

•8.3 

4-> 

•2 m 

+j 2 
o3 

^ S 

c2 .a S..S 


03 

P 


d 

o 




I 

| T3^a| 

-O -3 P o- 

. g S.J5 £ 
5“ S .s *> ■s 
.5 +j 4) a » 

P o3 tic H ^3 
CP d -JJ 
P 03 a a 
•g j=i o 2 

ta >0-^3 a 


£ >? i 

03 tZ t 

|a a 


CO 


• ^ »—-H 

- 2-^2 
o u 

d3 T3 

,0 J; oj 


03 

H-> 

rt 

p 

C3 


w 

p 

«a 

03 

>> 

CO 

p 

o 


2 

a .2 

03 -JJ T3 
co q ) 

0* 4 ) jd ^ 

C/2 oj cS co 


H3 

03 

.d 

^ ®2 

5| 

•2 X! 

2 -2 
-p ca 
co u 

•g) a 

«c^ 


3 

5} 

•o 

« 

Q 

W 

H 


T3 

i _03 

m3 

S 

o 

a 

1 

8 

G 

d 

2 
o3 

> 


03 

• 

• 

T3 

d 

J5 

d 



• t—4 

o3 


d 


d 

03 

bp 

X 

o 
































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


217 


• fl 

if | g 

a| a 

ji a, -p 

tri g -o 

- 2 "3 
rn a 

g os 

o 

fl 


fl 

4-> 

o 

> 

4-> 

g o -+J 

bo r, -fl 

•— 4-n rj 

W tp .fl 
fl *j 


o S 

f § 
" I 

M « 
c$ A 
<y to 

“■ O 

*J - t -’ 

fl +j 

co 

<1) fl 

> U 

a 


8 


A p 

tH > 


fl 

o 

1 -H 

■M 

a 




C<3 


M ^ CO 




CO 
0) 
■+-> 

^ J 

. to 
2 « 
O 8 

4-> «H-H 

CO 

a 

-fl 4 ) 

00 +j 

a 2 


O 4? >> > 
A £* .0 
A A 
fl O 

8 


& 

& ° 

a 

fl -u 

O 6> 

o ’C 


t- 

Oh 


W P 

a 

•rt . fl 
"d >» . T 3 

-2 *2 4J 
tn fl « T3 

’bn A H 0 

3 8 g>S 


w w) a 

Q) • «-H ^ 

Jr rl 

£ ^ 'O 
4» © a 

o p o 

a £ a 

fl 4-> 4) 

co 

A 4) 

4H fl ,2 « 

o o +j -fl 


fl 

a 

a 

-t-> 

o 


& a 

§ 13 S S £ 

r? • r -» ^ 


c3 


c5 


a 


a^asa 


fl 

a 

fl 

■M 

-4-> 

4-J 

o 

o 

o 

> 

> 

> 

4-> 

4-> 

-M 

co 

CO 

CO 

a 

fl 

a 

-A 

-fl 

-fl 

60 

60 

60 

a 

5 

a 


2 


>» 

a 

o 


CO 

Ph 

• —H 

PA 


fl 

O 


CO 

pH 


a 

a 


o 

-fl 

a 


co 

Ph 


O 

ss 

■*-> 

fl 

a 

-fl 

+-> 

A 

Ph 

O 

s 


A 

-fl 


fl 

O 


a 

Ph 

a 

CO 


• P*H 

to 

o 


0) 

i-3 


i 



fl 

5 «> 

O A 
A 4-> 


A 

Ph 

o 

a 


—— 

o 

o 

& 


fl 

A 

-fl 


co 

A 


fl 

fl 

>s 

-fl 

to 

a 

4-> 

fl 

•h 

o 

tf 


i 



a 

A 

sa 

o 

-fl 


to 

A 

+-> 

fl 

4-> 

O 

PS 


co 

fl 

O 

• H 

co 


-*r «hh 

■ fl A 

fl ^ 2 


vj £; 

H .2 -H 


5fl 

fl 


a 

a 


O czj • ^ 

> C5 4^ P 

£ cu o _ 

k*> L rt -j— 

5 p ^ ^ ^ 

s § §r* - 




^ a -d 

fl Oh. a 


I I -4^ 

fa a >< 

TO 


0) 

fl 


fl 

.2 

a 


^-d 
H3 fl 

<u fl 

% fl 

o o 

O- a v 
fl fl O 

M fl T) W 


O w 

to ’5b 
a 


'd 

a 

1 

c 

• pH 

>> 

4-1 

P-l 

60 

.fl 


Pu 

fl 

fl 

'd 

‘fl 

cr 

4-> 

o 

fl 

fl 

-O 

a 

fl 

fl 

fl 

a 

pi 

cu 

a 

oo 

fl 

a 

-a 

4-> 

S-H 

a 


d 

CO 

-fl 


(X 


c» n. 

‘Sb A 
<u in 

« 


G 

Is 

o 

co 


O fl 
fl 


w ^ 

03 to 

oi 

fl +j “2 

3 f. « 
o ^ « 


fl 3 


o ^ 
o 8 

a 
cr 
a 

(-H 


fl 


fl o 

O 

• pH 

■d a 

oj o 

.2 fl 
Sb ^ 

pg £ 


CO 

fl 

fl 

.a 

a 

o 

fl 


fl 

-fl 


-d ci 

Ph * —h 

O -fl 
fl 

fl *d 

ce ? 


CO 

fl 

£» 


>> 

-d 

fl 


CO 


4-> 

fc- 

fl 

.fl 

"3 


c$ 

4-j 

Oh 

«4-H 

O 

cr 

a 

Ph 

CO 

4-< 

M 

■fl 

-Q 

4-> 



d 

fl 

pH 

o 

a 

/-N 

pO 


4-J 

fl 

a 

• H 

<D 


pH 

Oh 

fl 

r/) 

c3 

tH 

4-> 

■4—> 

o3 

O 

d 

W 

fl 

Oh 

fl 

CO 


fl 

-t-> 

O 

3 


Oh 

Oh 

• f—^ 

IW 

CO 

• rH 

CO 

CO 


O 

CO 

w 


cj 

d 

a 

o 


a 

a 


a 

§ • 
O ’TJ 

fl o> 

>» A 
fl 

b to 
a w 


CQ 


a 

CO 

fl 

-O 

fl 





























The Annals of the American Academy 


218 


o 

H 

>* 

9 

m 

co 

fa 

w 

w 

55 

w 

H 

O 


W 

H 

g 

S 

o 

55 


to 

g 

Ph 


a 

o> 

T3 

*tO 


e3 



CO 

O' 



p £ 


<u 

4-> 

O 

> 


o’ 

1 

o s 

44 • 1—1 

4P> 

• m 
» . 

4J 

o 

«4H 

o 


4—H 

o 

0 > 

t> ^ 

PH 

O 

• r-» 

>■ 

>5 

>5 

> 

T3 

c3 

a . 

44> 

to 

<u 

aa 

*4 

4-> 

4-4 

CO 

01 

aa 

4-4 g 

to 2 
4 ) w 

aa 44 

t-i 

13 

H 

C/3 

Ph 

. <D 

be 

ffi 

3 

s 

E 

bfi 

a 

QC e 

X2 

and 

oth( 


s ® 3 

-p Tj 
h O C 
<L> > o 

> o> 
o ^ in 

* \ cd f> 
0*0 0 

> ^ s 

+-> <y V 

I * ° 

>£ h M 

ffl 


W 

o 

M 

o 

w 

O 

Q 

55 

O 

o 

fa 

m 

Q 

fc 

<1 

Eh 

« 

p 

pH 


*T3 

a 

O 

5 

o> 

C/2 


co 

P 

s 


"2 


CO 

- 


a 

o 

4-> 

CO 

.53 

Ph 


a; 

o> 

• r-H 

O 

a3 

o> 

•P k! 
CO >s 

p rz 
y+ 3 
Ph O 


o> 

o 

o 

rH 

13 

4 J k* 
CO <4 

p 33 
tH £3 

Ph o 






0 




a 3 

O) 




02 

a 


1 

0 > 

bX) 


ss 

4-4 

0 



>> 

aj 

4 J 

Ph 

cd 

C /3 


CO 

CO 

0 ) 

£ 

H 

n 

p 

c 3 


cd 

CO 

0 ) 


-0 

o> 

0 

a 

0 


<u 

a 

a 

cd 

fa 

O 

S 

a 

< 

Ph 

Ph 

cd 


0 

p 

0 > 

aa 

a 

T 3 

. 

a 

• H 

a 

&d 

O 

O 

4 -> 

cd 

C 

tic 


a 

a 

0 ) 

a 

o> 

p 

55 

O 

PQ 

cd 


-M 

« 4 -H 

P 

cd 

cd 

0 

• ^4 

a> 

4 -> 

p 

• 

co 

0 > 


Ph 

O 

O 

a 

hi 

H 

<5 

Z 

0 

4 -< 

<U 

-a 


m 

CU 

0 

0 ) 

4 -> 

O 

aa 

13 

O 

T 3 


s 

Ph 

Ph 

O 

H 


cd 

• 

• 4 —* 

0 

cd 

Ph 

'Ti 

a 


O 

0 ) 

O 

Ph 


aa 

Oh 

a 

0 > 

cd 

4 -> 

O 

a 

a) 

_Oh 

0 

33 

Ch 

Ph 

cd 

O 

a 

0 

aa 

T 3 

01 

O 

is 

a 

0 



<1 

a 

pp 

rH 

O 

<1 

0 

-Q 

£ 


H 

cm 

I—f 


Q 

fa 

to 

o 

fa 

V 

a 

o 

55 

w 

fa 

O 


a 

0) 

CH 

o 


to 

p 

o> 

4-> 

o 

;> 


T3 O 

0) 

co fl 

,3 o 
o ‘-S 

a 

o> 

ca 


3 

a 

O' 


g\2 
a S 

a 

l 


I 

&X) 

o 

Ph 


to 

a 

ra 


a 

o 

a 


aS 

Oh etj 

a 

'o <o 

W 2 


o ^ 

I 2 
I * 3 

8 g 

.2 fl 

o 

« 1 _J • »-H 

o a 
is -i 

-Q .2 


T3 

o 

.a 

a 

cr 

<u 

p 

a 

_o 

*.p 

a 

■g 

.2 

Si 

o> 

Ph 


T3 

<u 

P 

• ^H 

a 

o' 

0> 

P 

a 

o 

• w 
44> 

a 

H 

■P 

.2 

bo 

o> 


a 

£ 

. o 

T3 

aj to 

«L H-> 

.a *hh 
o' S§ 

£ J 

§ =- 

4-4 

a 

Ci 


c3 

Oh 


CO 


.2 a o 

bo 

$ «8 ^ 
Ph P 3 ,0 


a 

£ 

. o 
'■o 

<U co 

tH H-> 

.a ■ —■ 

O' § 

g-S 

§ s 

• *-H JT 
44> *H 

a ®§ 

P Oh 

a Lj • 

• 2 aa o 

bO O —< 
C cd '“Z2 

w w 2 


a ts g 
« cu.2 

4 ) +J 

3 « cj 
Oh P 
ST a to 

£ co'Sb 

S a fa 
.2 -=3 Ph 

sa 

a Oh 13 

•bas ^ 

P- O Cj 
03 +* 

pp w 2 


2 

S 

« 

Q 

W 

H 


T3 

-2 

v* 

Ph 

o 

M 


CO 

<u 

• >-H 

o 

a 

8 

> 


a 

*3 

<a 

% 

& 


<u 

— 

• H 

aa 

CO 

Oh 

a 

a 

w 

D 

5? 


3*^ 

4) 

CO 

o3 

•“9 

fS 

<D 


•p A 

^ a 

>4 

as 

Oh 

33 

a5 a 

0 

Cm . 

0 e ^ 

3 

Oh 

„ no 

, 0) 
rn 


Ch 

O 

PH 


CU 

CO 

a 

(LI 

Oh 

X 

01 




<L> 


Oh 

£ <4 

53 «Ph 

a u 
a aa 


a a 


o 

s- 


a 

a 

o 

o 


CO H^H 

. . OI a 

a w 5 

w 5 S 

* fr" 


fe pq 


o 


a 

CO 


O 

ad 

a 

Q 


>5 

• - ^ 

a 
a 
o 
o> 

Ch 

o 


OI 

a 

iS 8 


0> 


CO 

a 

o> _ 

A) C/3 

-5= « 


fe < 


o 

55 







































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


219 


a o 
S y 


i 

y 

Ch 


O <u P 


d 

a 

y 

3 

y 

be 


>> 

0 ) 

s 

o 


"d 

a 

a 

y 


B g 
in £ 


o 

is 


a 

c3 

a 
a y 

§5 


CO ‘ 

y m 


o 

> 


p y 


o 

> 


CO 

cj 


3 


u-i to 

5 s 

<3 

*d 

gB 

B 8 


to 
y 

J J ^ 
■& 

E •§ j§ 

» g.sp 

£ a-* 

a § © 

£> 03 

CD d 

TO CO 


y 

y 




y 

y 

• H 

O 

o 

4-> k* 

CO >S 

a d) 
• r - £2 
P O 


8 

O 

33 

y 

■a 3 
CO 

a ra 
y+ £3 

P o 


y 

y 

O 

-a 

y 

•*-> . • 
CO 

•- 'a 

P § 


y 

y 

• 

o 

aa 

y 

-a a 

(O >1 

.Sd *3 
P o 


£3 

y 

aa 

£ 

-d 

y 

•a 

cd 

-a 

O 

y 

Sh 

c3 

CO 

y 

a 

d 


<V 
p 

c 

a 

a 

o 

o 

£ 


c3 c3 

b cr 
8 « 
Cu 

CU £3 
c3 oi 


y B 

a 

go 

v | 7§ 

p B 


cS 

u3 


co 

s s 
a » 

co 
0 > 

a 

C3 

£3 
y 

a ^ 

£3 O 


y 

| 


1 

p 

o 

p 

y 

CO 

0) 

a 

-p 

O 

c3 

a 

rH 


'■S 

a 

O 

d 

c3 

O 

CD 


0) 

■a 

P 

c3 

3 

y 

co 

aa 

d 


o 

(O 


y 

5fl 

o 

y 

a 

e3 

to 


O 

a 


£3 

32 

•d • 
y "d 
a y 

1 3 

£ 8 
** <3 
co 
34 


o 
3 

.2 B 


CO 9 

• •—• o 
bo • rj 

g -a 

is 

y .2 
3 D bo 
y 

1 8 

S | 

co 

•P £> 

o ft 

<D 

K* «P 


P 

d 

p*: 

33 3 
y -- 
o3 g 
Lt3 -O 
y 

• aS 
-O a 
y aS 

h a 


3 

cr 

y 

a 


y 

CO 

3 


CO 

cc3 

.2 33 


0 ) -a 
to X 

o y 
aa a 

t! « 

o o 

£ *s 

o ^ 

■y ° 

« y 
y 

T3 ;—| 

y aa 

«a ^ 

i B 
a ^ 


M 

c3 

P 

nd 
a ^ 

g •- 

^ 3 


y 

_y 

"y 


cr 
y 
a 

3 
O 
cS 

f-i cc5 

y ^a 
3 03 
y CP 
be d 


•*-> -M 
f~ (h 

s3 

CU a . 

co 

■§■§ = 
03 P J 

3 
O 


co 

3 

O 

• F-* 

4-> 

cc3 

y 

«a 


3 

ti 


y 


a oj 

g 5a 

o a 

•rt q. 

CO cj Si 
•J-I •«-< CO 

J 3 ® 3 

K esa 


aS 

3 

cr 

CO 

3 

y 


cc3 

in 


6 tk 8 

« cej 
y cu^ 

1 2 1 

|a» 

bo +j co 

cu y 

4 J y X 
cj y cj 
X 

co y *« 
o 


ci -m 2 
4-> *1 3 


3 

3 

O 

y 

S 

y 

-4-> 

c3 

-*-> 

co 


o 

y 


y 


co d 
3 3 

B a 


. -d 

CO V 
p £ 

8*3 

>>£ 
O tH 

^ 3 
-u O 

’’g 

• fh GO 

d 3 3 

'3--g56 

CU £ c« 


BS 


be 

y 

a 


O 

• 

aa 


O 


e8 

a 


o 

aa 

c3 


3 


O 



co 

a 

y 

3 

O 


oS y 

•■—! rt 



P 



























220 


The Annals of the American Academy 


o 

H 

t* 

« 

< 

2 

W 

6 

w 

55 

w 

H 

O 

> 


w 

H 

£ 


O 

55 


« 

w 

M 

o 

B 

U 

Q 

£ 

O 

u 

H 

C/2 


H 

£ 

£ 


to 

a 
o 
y 
y 
c n 


tn 

a 

y 

tn 

0 ) 

4-J 

o 

> 


to 

O 

• F-* 

% 

u 

O 


jj * 

-3 g 

to •- 
« 8 
8 


y 

«t-i y 

° Eg 

to ° 
.■B 4) 

S3 
S £ 


8 

c$ 


o 2 
y 

to** 
d 
o 

8 

tn 


tn 


d 

O 

tn 

ii 

y 

G 


d 

o 

y 

a 


o 
d 
y 

5 S 


b 

d 

d 2 

'C 

•C to 

o ? 
‘5* q 

a g 


d a 

8 8 

+» v 
tn a) 
y _d 
to 3 
60 h 

*d a 
to «h 

^ « 
4 ; tn 
to ^ 
^ d 
J-, to 

o to 


to .2 
G to 
to d 

g J 
8 a 

tn *** 

4> to 

to .fa 
to 
d 

S * 

■ M b-d 
03 2 2 


co 0) 

•** J3 
0 ) +3 

t-< 

^ a 
■5 £ 

» 


I 

I 


E © 


d 


cx 


0 ) 

M-> 

o 

> 

4-> 

tn 

y 

to 

be 


a to a 


3 

^ o 

4J > 

CO 

d) 

*rA • ^ 
to +-> 


a 


c3 


tn 2 tJ 

£ $ S 

J'O.'S 
a b 8 

fa to 
d ^ 

-t-> a tn 

w *a 
to 

.SPeta o 

to o GO 


8 


+J t-i O 

2 0 A 

3 jg _ 

5 8 . 

^ g 8 

•si® 




y 


y 


o> 


y 


y 


y 


o 

• fH 


y 

4-J 

‘o 


‘o 


o 


"o 

CO 

to 


to 


to 


to 

• F-t 

y 


y 


y 


y 

w 

4-> 

tn 

b 

M-> 

tn 

b 

HJ 

tn 

to, 

tn 


• fa 


tH 



F < 

H 

(h 


a 

M 

o 

a 

M 

o 

a 

W 

o 

a 


tn 

H 


Jz tn 

^ o 

° 3 

§« 


H 

<3 

Eh 

O 

a 


o 


I 

4) 

bo 

d 

d 

tn 

S- 

d 


d 

y 


y 

to 

to -g 

3 s 

< a 


to 

to 

to 

y 

d 

i 

y 

■y 

Q 


o 

w 

tn 

o 

a 

U 

« 

o 

w 

d 

O 


d 

y 

O 


tn 

y 


-X3 o 

rt 

tn d 

o o 


U 


cd 

'd 

d 

C? 


y 

to 


« tn 
h to 
O 

c o 

a to 

§5 


to 

d 


d 

__ o 

y hq 


d ^ 

y 
to 


tn 


'JU 

3 "2 

3 § 


to 
o £ 

d ° 

S y 
to 


1 tn 

2 d 
« to 


tn 


y 

y 

d 

tn 


s. d3 

^ cj 

t. to 
«■> G'O 

u- 


I _• 

fa ^ 
G 5 


y 


d 

^ >H 

G d 
G 
y 
tn 


y 

to 


<5o-2 

£ d 

i .2 

ES HJ 
d d 


y 

d 


d to 

•a g 

d 


o 

y 

y 


y 

-m 

d 

• i—< 

m 

d 


d 

PU 


d 

. «-. 

>> g 
fa G 
d y 
tn tn 


tn tn 
d d 

a - 13 

x 

d ■£ 
^ d 
G 


a 


^ o 

cn G to 


d 

§ 


y 

d 

bw 


^ CO 

. 'a 

m-» y 
O ^H 
to 4J 
d s-t 

to v to 
« ^.fa 

n M d 

-g £ o* 

2 « 9 


.a i 

y 

x £ 

d X 

^ H 

s « 

O 23 

&§ .-fa 
«« O 
O © 


^=i J 
I? 

d 

d ^ 
o £ 

• f. “JH 

4-> »h 

to d 
Hd Q_| 

d 


d fan 
y O 

a « 
>».2 
d m-> 
a ‘y 


a 
a 

a 

t3.2 

§ 

+-> G to 


d 

o 


2 

<3 

* 


Q 

B 

H 


nd 

y 

to 

a 

£ 

o 

a 


tn 

y 

• ^ 

y 

d 

8 

a 

> 


d 

.a 

o 

S-i 

d 

U 


d 

o 

m 


u 

O 


bJO 

.2 • 

"y 8 

O) 4-> 

5 a i 

o a 

I 

d tn y 

D 


o 

CW 


d 

G 


y 

G 


tn 


u 


O 


d 

• 

to 

o 

d 

*43 jj 

a b 

g d 


g d .9 

G 

l 8 l 

d ►>» d 

^d 

*y 

a a 

§m*3 

H 

H 


































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


ni 



to O 
4 o 



p 

o 




to 

4 

-P 

o 

> 


3 

«p 

O 

>> 


P 

3 
0, 
3 
cr - " 

P-i -O 


3 

9 


+» 

to 

to 

c3 Ch 

3 

O O 

4 

to 

4 

•P 

O 

to ^ 
0 

O s 

3 

> 

«p X 


0 ^ 

>> 4 
-P 4 

>» 3 

£ 8 
3 

p 

x Sfl 

2 0 

3 4 

3 4 

S f 

E f 


S3 4) 

O 




■P 

=3 

CQ 


4 

a 


to 
• 4 
-p 

H 3 
V3 X 
3 13 
P X 
3 3 
sr 1 3 

Oh 4 


O *J 

^ § 
© 4 
A 

§ .s 

+-> $ 

to O 

J ► 

v .9 

j> o 

• 4-> 

0) 

4 £ 
4 -3 
p -p 


.2 

4) 2 
■P 5c 

3 & 

x ^ 
x « 

3 •-* 

3 cl 
W 3 _ 
-P CO 3 

s 73, 

-3 -a x 

6 C 4) a 

P-i P o 
3 

2 W)+» 
-3 4 3 
•P P 4 


4 


3 

P 

3 

s 



.3 

> 

• ^ 

X) 

4> 

4 

S3. 

o 

>> 

32 

X 

4> 

■P 

3 co 

•£ a 
O O 

Ph "co 


2 0 
CC3 • *-< 

CO 

a a> 
a> x 

-P 3 

*13 X 
° X 
3 

eg c3 
3 t> 

4) 

x p 

4) 3 
bfi 

3 4) 
3 p 

A 2 

a -5 


3 ■*■» 
.3 co 

O 

3 ^ 
O 4) 

"3 _3 
oo *3 

• pH 4- J 

4 

^ £ 

4) 

4> P 

4 4> 


m 


°A 

o 


to 
4) 

■3t a 


3 

.2 

‘.p 

o 

JJ 

'a; 


32 


X w 
4? ■£ 
4J 4* 

c3 

O to 

« x 


X 

2 

bo 

3 

3 

p 

Pi 

3 


4J 

Pi 

3 


3 

Si 

3 C 


w 

.3 

3 

cr 

4> 

p 

3 

.2 

p 

3 

p 


be 

4> 

as 


x 9 

4> P 

.3 O 

O’ p 

• pH 

3 c3 
O j3 

-4-> 

3 >> 

• pH 

1 3 
3 PU 

&#£ 

3 3 

P-i W 32 


O 4 
4> 

> J '4> 

-4-> 

• pH . ■> 

O * 

.2. g 

3 3 

a p 

cj 

Uh 

° 8 

tJ 3 

o x 
g<x 
& o 

5 3 

C/2 o 


* 2 
eg 5b 

3 4 

^ P* 

t i x 

ri 3 -i 

4 32 & 

3 4> 

P 


4i 


W « 


3 

O 


3 

O 


3 

«3 _ 

& 2 
CO 


^ -e ^ 

-£ 3 ^2 

J & 3 
-P> 4) 41 
p ,3 X 

w 2 

-M 4 rt 

3^2 

a if 

I 

o «s.t! 

> .2 ^ 


J i2 

-3 O 
3 'g 

W 2 

”3 

4) 3 

O a 
9 4> 
?*• to 


3 
&, 

4 
to 

3 

to 

3 

r3 


b o 
3 •—■1 

f t 

* -5 

L* 


w 


I 

cO 

a 

0) 

to 

cO 

to 

c3 

^3 


3 j 2 
9< as 
p -Q 
O 4 

A 3 

w s 


A 

& 

D 


3 

o 

a 

4 
> 


3 

o 

to 

.9 

1 

3 


to 

4 

4 


a 

a 

3 O 

■H 

a s 

> a 
•+-> >» 
SPQ 


to 

4 

4 


a 

o 

0 

>> 

+-> 

p 

3 
PU 

4 

A 

H 


.9 

a 

8 >> 

. 2 « 


b0 

3 

• pH 

a 

o 
































Election Officials Party Committees 


222 


The Annals of the American Academy 


y 

<u 


I 

O 

U 

44 

y 

• »H 

fH 

4-> 

CO 

• ^ 

Q 

13 

a 

.2 

"55 

w 

y 

fee 

a 

o 

U 


y 

'V 0 ) 
y 44 

y ^ 
« g 

w a 

o 

iu 

<3 y 
y -a 


'80 


3 

CO 

• 

c/D 

a 

o 

U 





s-c « y 
O £ 

a y «§ 

i-Q 03 

«5 a 

r “ l ^ y 

a §3 
S *o 

■5 M >) 
a 

M 63 

J-3 'S 

y o 
o oi 

s a 8 


X 


(- 

o 

«4-c 

1 

CO 

• 

i 

y 

y 

> 

i 

a 

a 

o 

*a 

a 

eg 

y 

44 

eg 

ra 

V 

4-> 

T3 

a 

eg 

y 

y 

-a 

44 

y 

• H 
fH 

4-> 

; a 

a 

a 

4-> 

CO 

• H 

a 

o 

2 

*t; 

-a 

eg 

y 

Pi 

«4-< 

a 

O 

y 


CO 

CO 

0 > 

fH 

• H 

a 

,a 

y 

^a 

P 

^a 

y 

44 

«44 

4-> 

p 

y 


o 

-a 

a 

eg 

cong 

trict 

y 

_a 

H 

*cg 

-a 

o 

w 

y 

4-> 


•a y >> 
g y tn 

8»| 

18 s - 
13 ££3 y 

t 3 g; 4-> 

• H ° <2 

T3 ^ « 

g » 

« TJ S? 

y "S 
y *■> 

-a 5 o 

44 fl l-H 


y 

y 


a 

a 

® 

13 

u 

44 

a 

y 

U 

y 


CO 


_. y 

'y a; 

y 4 -j 

4-> 44 

03 *2 

y a 

w a 

.L o 

o 3 y 
y -a 

® 4J 
>> 

w _0 


o 

CO 

4-> 

CO 

• 

CO 

a 

o 

CJ 


a 

eg 


O 

y 

y 

44 

4-> 

• 

a 

a 

o 

y 


a 

2 o 

«+H 23 

a 


y -a 
a y 

eg 
y 


^ u, y 
a C V > 

a ^ 

fn co 

’a ^ 2 y 

fn X 


a •£ 

« a 

cs y 
a y y a 
-a 03 ^ ^ 

O co H H 


(4 

y 

-a 

a 

y 

a 


eg 

>> 


u 

O 


O 

y 

13 

t- 


§1i 

03 a o 
x 
y 


3 13 

s ° 

j3 ”5 

y o 
a % -a 

o y eg 


03 

(4 

y 

4-> 

o 

> 

o 

o 

o 


a 

a * 

8 -2 


f-4 

y y 
y -a 


tS o 

- y | JS 
y y S .tS 

^ 13 o 


eg 

4-> 

03 

y 

-a 

H 


y 

y 


a 


CO 

4> 

CO 

SJ § 

5-S 


«3 

(4 

y 

y 


a 

eg 

a 

a *g 
a <3 C* 

§ V -3 
.a • y 

a y y 

• <—> (V) 

U > CO 





© M Js I 

y 4-3 y 


K S 
y a 
-a o 

a co 

y 8 
S be 
y a 
y o 

■5 A 
^ 2 
3 8 
^ a 

+J o 

< £ 


y 

-a 

4-3 

>» 

-a . 

-0 § 
0 ) .55 

4^ 4-> 

8 y 

^ a 

4-> O 

y y 
’C y 

4-> 4J 

CO Cg 

• I 

-o w 



'P ^ 
g y 

o 

W • fH 

CQ O 

rH ^ 

§P^ 

4-> al 

J a 
W & 


(4 

o 

4-3 tn . 

y y 3 

03 

2<"2 y 

fl o 
• ^ 

a i i 


O H H co 


t- 

y 

a 

y 

&D 

4-3 

Cg 

C/3 

a . 

>» g 

a .2 

P» 4-> 

§Ji 

P 

P 


a 

o 

y 

-O 

a 

eg 


eg 

(-> 

y 

a 

y 

be 

4-3 

eg 


2 W 
y eg 
y rt 

a § d 

°‘Z o 

03 eg .a 

a 3 y 

a §« 

co 


8 a 

*y 8 

13 y 

y a 
a a 

03 w 

be 

-a 

CO r4 

a § 


a 

o 


y « a 

a a s 

eg O y 
cn'5 a 


x) 

e3 

o 

W 


o 

U 


*-X ^ i—3 
jz, • <-* 

y U 


C0 
>> 
eg 

. ^ 
O 


a eg Cfl 
eg -O u 

o 

a a -g 
o 8 5 

^ O Cu y y 


eg 

a 

o 

N 


y 

& 


CO 

-a 

y 


•3 5 

■ds§ 
a eg 

eg 03 ^ 
g >2 
o a a 

I i | 


co i » 

^ w I 

^ HH ^ 

13 CO 

3 0-“^ 
-a 13 *2 .-ti 

gja s w 


o 

•■a 

a 

o 


eg 
& £ 


o- S 


, w ►*> 

eg y 4J 

s 

y a 3 

_ r . u y o 

•9 U &i &> y 


a 

a 

o 


CJ 

























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


223 


-0 

4 

a 

4 

4 


CO 

*H 

4 

4 


g O sg 
a . 4 

t< O 
•2 4 4) 

£ -a 'a 

^3 -m M 

u o 


< 

CO 

0) 

4 

4 

S3 


a a 

S o 

CD 4 

® "a 
«*- 5? 

o 4 

co S 
-t-> >3 
co O 
• ■— M 
CO «*H 
1=1 

O & 

O .2 


> ^ 

s ® 

B e 

• «h rr 

^ « O 

iLg M 

*i l> D 

4-> *-l 

« s ^ 

■go ^3 
-*-> a co 

o bp >5 

,© *? a 

4) O -o 



*33 

4 

a 

4 

4 

*33 


CO 

4 

a 

H 


CO 

*1 

0) 

4 


«5fl a 
§ O 31 

o , 4 

ti 2 4 
■3^1) 

5 -a a 

-C3 

o o 


5 >. a 
§ 5 co 

■S g « 

a o 4 

6^a 


<3 c$ 
ii > B 

03 c« *3 
4_> s Q 

3S a 

hO O 
• 4 

. Cl 

K • pH 

E* w 

a •- 
a a 

a a 
a a 

Cu o 


a 


"0 

41 


4 

4 

a3 

co 

4 

a 


>> 

a 

T3 


§ 

cS n <o 

CO 

. 4 

S- Si © 

•a © 4 

2 -a a 

a3 +-> M 

u o 


4) 

-O 


a 

3 

O 

4> 


4 

■*-> 

•♦i 

a 


co 

-O ^ 
J> X> 

••a a 

a 

4) 


4 g 

o-jsal 

© 4-> ^ 

|j?|S 

-t * 

*33 

a 5 


£ _ 


4) 

a 


a 

o 


C o 4 
cS - 


4> 


a a 

□ *H 

a 5.a 

8 *£ “ 


>» 

flg 

a 

H 

u 

a 


a £> 
a a 
a a 

o 

4 © 

o ^ 
° o 

• i I Cw 
^ © 

^2 a 

CO P 

• pH J-M 
Cfl «*-H 

O ^ 

_o 


fr 

03 

a o 

•c 

cu a 

• H 

© -a 
-a ,±j 


a 

o 

• pH 
4-> 

4 

4) 


*- > <U 
& u 

*S3 


T3 
V 
—> 

4 

4> 


a a 

a co 
W> >> 
ir> a 


U .O '© O X) 



a 


4> 

a 

o ° 
U 

1 ° 
H co 

•£ 4-> 

a to 

u a 

4) O 


-8 *»“ 
a ^ 

C3 T 1 

4 J3 


fH 

4J *r< 
2 —H k 

^ • pH 


fH 


■+J 4) 

to « 

41 Jj 

a3 -g 

H a 


o ^ 

,H c3 

a 

o 

• pH 

U co 

^ 5 


w 

Cu w> 

< 4> 
41 

a 


a 

,2 
’•*3 
o 

_4 

"a 

Si 

41 £ 


O % <5 a 


a g> 

a s 


"d 

a; 


m 

v*/ C) co 

ts *g 

-2 § ° 
4 a co 


CO 

>> 


I 

4 

> 4 


a 

(H 

4 

a 

4 

bC 

CO 

a 

4 

a 

a 

co 


a 

o 


u a 

c-i 

a c® 

.2 -p 

4J ^ 

a a 

co O 

a as 
cl a 
3-2 

O o 
a 5 

*13 

a> 

C”* 


bfi 4 >j-T3 

S -5 -e a 

a ^ § a 

O o 
a-a o £ 

4 33 ® 

rt >2 v a 

33 g a C3 

u-. a H *° 

O 4 

, t-l co . 

■tf a . 4 co 

22 co a3 4 
© « 4 co as 

w 8 ‘-M ‘a ©h 

J§ £ a 9 ^ 

4J ft W 


^ 4 
•©. 4 
4 4 

8 8 
Jq ^a 
H H 


CO 

a 

a 

o § 

• pH Cj 

■£ O 

CO *ph 
C« 4-> 

41 4 

0**4 

a — 


o 

4 

4 

a 

a 

co 


2 

4 

a 

4 

bfi 


6 S 

4J a 
"4 a 

_ 8 >. 
a a - 

^ 3 

co O 


I « 

© M 
bC 4) 


i 

4 

t— 

O- 


(i 

o 


"a co ^ 

a 

, 


a o 
o s 


«3 **«« 

-© *rt O 


4 

4 

4 co 

U 


a 4 


CO 


12 " 
'u 

S co 
Pm 


a o 

W x 
a w 4 


CO 


a o 

a .2 5» 

"' +-> -Q 


n3 

a 
a _o 

"a 

a co 

o 2 *1 
^ © a 
a O ft. 
~o 


V) 


a is 

O O* 

8 S 

>> a «* 
S « 
a m 
3 33 4 
o 4 -a 


.a o tj h 8 


4 

a 

co O 

V *W 

S3.3 

© a 

t 0 

£ 8 
a « 

p.2 


a 

Cl 

4 42 
CC 13 

a a 
a 

CO «*4 
4 o 
M .2 
B r H 

4 -2 
x 1 cu 

* a 













Election Officials Party Committees 


224 


The Annals of the American Academy 


© 

© 


a 

a 

£ 


© 

4-4 

CO 

• pH 

Q 

*3 

p 

o 

• H 

co 

co 

(1) 

fe) 

P 

O 

O 


a> 

a) 

•t-> 4-> 

o 

© 3 

w a 

° 

© « 

&a ^ 

o_£ 


o 

co 
co 
* co 
Cl 
o 
O 


'V 

© 

X 

• H 


co 

*h 

I &gi| 
•sis 1 >> 

8 U 4) C 

-P Jfif ^ 
UccHO 


4) © 

+J 

o o 

> > 

© c 

p a 

O .2 

4-> 
CO ^2 

OS 2 
<3 33 
c$ 

c 2 

1 o 

^ 'Ti 

© Is 

di c 

H cc3 


fn 4-* 4— 1 

c3 co ~ 


c «a 

p 

o 

Pi CO 

H> 

O © 

•°a 

ca 

© 

cS 

© co 
© 

o o 

®HH K* 


CO 

f n p 

«4 

© 

© 

CC 4_< 
«4-C 

>> c 

a 

to 

© d 

p "2 
-T3 P 
© O. , 


co © 

© CO 

tH 

bB ■« 

c c 

o o 

© T3 


C 

« 4 ) 

CO > 

o3 C 
O 

eS 

S a 

e .2 

P CO 


^ o C 
ej ^ O 


a *h 

o> a; 
P -£ > 

CC3 rt 

» be o 

c3 © w 
bfi-O 
© _, 


© 

33 

co 

© 


^ .3 

| c 
cn r2 

^ s 

(h 

p 


c 

© 

a 


jB o 

p .2 


o *2 


c 

8h 




J> £ £ 


£ co 
_ © tj 
33 -h © 
fl 82 
c3 "O © 


> ■© 
s a 
© a © 

^a o © 

* © *c 
■*-> 

w 

© C3 

+-> 'TS 

C © 

© Ja 

S o H 
© 

.55 O 

o3 ^ co 
^3 o3 © 

rA U © 

QJ © +-> 


C 

<d 


© 

© 


a 

a 

o 

O 

*3 

t-> 

c 

© 

O 

© 

4-> 

cS 

4-J 

CO 


^ © 
© Jj 

-*-> .+-> 
© . a 

© a 

h a 

o 

A> U 

© © 
© ^a 

m ■* 

o £> 


o 

CO 

4-> 

CO 

• pH 

CO 

C 

O 

O 


33 

© 


co 

Sh 

0 ) 

a 


o >> 83 © 

o © o 


p 


^ in’ r 

a 2 © , 

U CO H O 


►> CO 

© ^3 

CO H 

2 ^ • 
i-m c 3 co 
•H O © 

<*H CO -4-> 

O CO H> 

a si a 

§ « a 

g 8 8 

*r3 

^ g .2 

Q © 23 


V “h 
b © 
o © 

O • PH 

« o 

• pH . 

+-> aa 

SB 


CO 

„ CO -- 

4-4 CO * 
CJ> d; CO 

r2 
■r-, © 

o o 

* * 


co 

sa 

• pH 
© 
Cl 


O Eh Eh 


i-> 

© 

o 

rP . 

CO M -H 

€©• O b 
- o S 
2P °* 

Ss ^a 

H =3 © 

2 O 83 

aa o, © 

CO , 

>H 

g 

Eh O 


T3 

Si 

o3 

O 

M 


a 

P 

o 

U 


& 3 

c3 O 

a *8 

•c .2 

p a 
a 

o 

© 


H3 

s 

rt 

O 3 
-P o 

a h 

32 © 
.a 3 © 
'6 0'© 
a 


T3 >» o 

P -H p: 

o3 3 4 j 

>» O 
h u P 
P *o 

8 5 ^ 

•si-s 

© O >J 

p ".-tJ 

B.-S b 
0 ) a o 


CO 4-4 
?H CO 
OJ • «-4 

o w 

1 a 
al 

•c 

© © 


© CO Si 

Si © o 

eS w ^ 

P 3 

© © 4 -> 

S P P 

P X p 

© O 

Q © 


> © h 

> pH 

■g T3 

o ^ 

P o 
pea 
a o3 




pQ 

3 -t3 

.-si 

co ^2 kC 

Oi S3 © >> 



















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


225 


A -JS >i 

8 % t 
a « ' 
a) a 

a o ^ 

o £ -a 


fa 

o 

a 

ay 


° « jfr o 

tn — ^ 


co 

*co 

a 

o 


U Z 


,__ o 

o _ 

- a 

4) -a 4) 

a t> 
a a a 
o o 
o o 


a ^ a 
a a £ 
a ^ a 

c/5 

• ph vu 

js s 8 

a 

Ocfih 


i 

CO 

fly 

5 

if 

a 


*4* 

o 

a>J 

a C 1 ° 

a 8 

Ej 

’PH V 

^ o £ 


^ gy £ fa 

*—< (—• C3 
*■ CO 


>4 

a 


u c2s 



fa 73 
fly fl 

ty * 
ay 


s? 

a 

a 

M 

fay 

CO 

tH 

<U 4) 

-8 -a 


0> 

<v 

a 

a 


fly o ,o 


a 

fly 

s 


a 


73 •, 

ay a 

as o 
a a 
5 

to >—• 

£ 2 

a 

0) 

1/3 O 

• pH 

, 

*H 4 -> 

JS 5 £ 

a 1/2 a 

a >,-3 
a as a 


A <£? a 
a as g 
o • •-* 

o __ -*-> 

Z y, a 
a « 9 
a ty £ 
o m g 

3 « © 

cu 

a co ay 
fee *'—' *j 


a 

ay 

a 


a 

o 

cy 


a 

fly -a 

& CO 


to 

ay 

.a 

a 

a 

«y 


ay ° 

^ a 

o 2 

M a 


.SS 8 
h S5 


a 

as 

cy 


a 

a 


CO 

~ fly a 

*5 as 8 

> -4-J p^ 


c* a> 


a 

5 H r, 

a 5 £ 

.fa ay ^ 
a ** 


a 


a 

a f_' 

S5 


0> C/3 

0 *h 

-S 

- -a 

i § 

I S 

fly «j 
ay o 


j-t cy 9 

CJcSh 


a 

as 


a 

cy 

fly 

X 


*o 


a-y cy t-. 

U(«H 


cn 

8 

fly 

a 


to 

a 
ay 
«y 

>i o 

a 

a 

■a 

2 a 
- § 3 


c$ 

a 
~ 
• pH 

C$ 


*H 

d 

c/3 


i 

3 

a> 

a 

ay 

a 

o 

a 

a 


§1 

II 

o ay 
fly 

■S.1 


I 

a 

fly 

> 

a 

8 

V 

H—* 

d 


C/3 
c/3 

J> & 
r • •_,_, 


- a to 

a ^ „ 


a 

a a 


. ° 5 o >> o 

S M -S +J 


fa a 

"S3 *h 

a 4) 
as > 
cy ^ 

CO 

ay 

^a _ 
h-> ay 
as 


a 


«+H 

o 


w d 
0) c 
c; o 

O 

H-> W 

a % 


a 

H-> 

d; «j 

°s 


to «+h 
-a> O 

CO 

• F“^ 

CO _ 

§ g 

u a 


8 S 

u ay 
>> x 
+y ay 

§Ji 


ay 

y-J 

m 

ay 

as 


a 


o 

ay 


o 

ay 5 

Xv 


i 41 

.2 as 
73 
. 73 

a 5 
a «3 

.2 a 

to ay 

8 a 

60 yg 

8 « 
+j 
4 ) a 

as ’C 


.fa 

F-H 0 


-d ^ 

li 

a a 

I a 

u 


ay >^3 
9 S a 
^ a 


E -5 * 


t-< 

fly 

as 

a 

ay 

a 

4 a 

O a. 


as 

C/3 


'g a 

a « 
> a> 

" o 

rd ^ 

^ o 

« as 

a E2 

9 ‘ E 

o d 

£ P- 


« a 

co 5 

at O ty-t 
fly .t-t a 

o to fly 

to y_l 

a ay cy 

H a ay 

fly be 

a aw 

fly 

V r -1 * 

fly as 
a cy 
as a 
•a fly 


y T* 


K*^ 

Sh 

a 


a 

a, 


fly fly O 
oy y- 1 co 

tJ 5 13 
'a “ ^ 

III 
^ >.* 
fly ^ a 

■^3 2 
^ rJ 
to -g a 
8 E 
2^ g 
K2 8 


a 

fly 

ay 


a 

a 

fly 

as 

CO 

co a 

4 ) flj 

a ay 


a 

fly 

y— 1 

fly 

73 


fly 


1 

o 

-o « 


fly 

a p 


"ay 

a 4) 
fly w 


*c3 

^H 

^ co 


fly 

fa 


a 

ay 

60 

• r—> C/3 

d3 > 
a *r! 


tn 

c$ 

03 8 
W g 

i 


a 'a 

o 

pd 

c3 

CO 

o ay 
+3 Ty 

pe 


i 

fly 

jy 

ay 


a 

a 

ay 

a 

ay 

60 

CO 

a 

ay 

a 


to 

a 

ay 

a 

o 

• pH 

C/3 

C/3 

• pH 

a 

a 


CO 

a 

fly 

as 

fly 


„ a 

5 .2 
m -P 


S y-t 
O a g 
a JJ ^ 
'ay fly fly 
a g a 

as £ as 

HHH 


r^S SS r^i 

as c as 

'g ^ 


.9 S 

a y-» 

b a 




a 


05 

i? pa 
o 


to 

j2 >> to 

o *S d 

fa 
o 
fly 


a 

o 

y-> 

a 

a 

o 

a 


CO 

fly 


SS >» 


d O 


^ o 

a ^ 

py O 


fly as 

73 

a 
a 

>> 


c3 fly >j 


a 

as 


fly 

a 

a 


fly 
Py «y 
« as 

fly y-> 


co a 
a fa 

cq o 


a 


co O 
ay fly o 
a «2 

3 , 8 «? 

8 S*S 

Py fly CO 


4) 

a J3 

a a 
fa -a 

0 C/3 

^pd 

H-> 

• 3 ^ 

to ay 
ay a 
2 C 
_ a o 
a «yp 

• pH ~ . 

.2 x g 

gw £3 

a? 


to 

ay 

y-t 

a 

73 


a 

a 


a 

ay 

a 

a 

a 

ay 

60 S 

CO 

^ £ 
cy fly 

o -5 

fly ’fa 
^ C 
y-> a 


w a 
-a 

_, fl> 

73 , > 

fly a 
C S 
a o 

to 

fly 2 

CO w 

a a 
ay ay 

Py 


a x a fly 

*a W « a 
2 


16 



















The Annals of the American Academy 


CO 

a 

a 

H 

H 

M 

a 

a 

o 

u 

>* 

H 

K 

Ph 


0) 


a 

a 

o 

U 

■fa 

4 

• 

Ph 

4-> 

CO 

• r-* 

Q 

s 

a 

o 

• *—4 

co 

CO 

4) 

|b 

p 

o 

U 


4 

4> 


a 

o 

U 

13 

t~ 

a 

4 

U 

4 

•fa 

cj 

-fa 

C/2 


-d g 

4 aS 
•fa +J 

j* 'a 
w a 

o 

cL U 

a; 4 

o as 


© 


>» 


o 

co 

4— 1 
CO 

*CO 

p 

o 

U 


*Q S 

4 -fa 

ts .ti 

5 g 

w a 

° 

.Lu 

4 

4 as 


m 


o 

Vi 

4-> 

CO 
• ^ 
CO 

a 

o 

V 


CO 

4 


O 

4 

-a 

a 

cS 


co 

4 


r V 

fa 

c$ 

£ 


4 

0 

4 

4 

fa 

p- 

CO 

4 

-fa 

CS 

p 

o 

4 


c3 

4 

fa 

O 

a 


d 

« 

u 

C 


CO 

.a 

'9 

o 

as 

be 

cs . 
SP fa 

a 05 

p a 

.a 

a a 

«fa 4 
O ,£3 

-fa 

CO 

§3 * 
as -d 

a 5 

4 4 

S 4 

"4 

ps g 

<1 c3 


CO 

u 

4 

as 


-d 

p 

a 

cs 

d 

a 

Ph 

• P-H 

c3 

as 

O 


<44 as i 

o —- c 

M) 4 

4 .a o 

4 co (J 


a-s 


a 

o 

4 


>> H 


CO 

Ci 

4 

as 


4 


4 

4 


-d 

a 

d 

■fa 

4 


fa 

CS 44 

!>> P<^ 

-fa 

cs 
S3 
O 

U 


2 -1 .tt 


CO 

fa 

O 

•fa 

4 

4 


.22 4 

4 
fa 

O 


d 

4 1 

CO 

O ' 
Ph 


d 


O fa -fa 
4 O 4 


-fa 

4 


4 co 
4 


$ a 


bC 

P 


as a 

4 S3 
d O 
4 4 


O 

4 


CO 

4 

C-H 


fa ”4 

O -d 

4 as 

a ^ 

O -fa 


a 

4 


T3 

4s 

-fa 

CS 

p 

o 

4 


P 

oS 

a _ 

• P 4 


>> f - 


a 


£ 

o 


>> 

fa 

d 

CO 

CO 

4 

4 

4 

a 


aS 

as 


co P 

as a 
4 as 

fa 


CO 

fa 

4 

4 


«—< qj z~ 

UtcHO 


. fa 

>» a 

b as 

q a 

a 4 

■? a 


Ph 


4 


CS 

-fa O 

oj <i-i 

o 

'■Q -2 

4 EG 
■fa " w 
4 rt 

§ 

w u 


!s a 

fa P 

5 p 

p ^ 
c o 

as g 


I 

a 

4 

a 


VI 


VI 


aa’g 

s§ 

as ^ 


O co 

«E ^ 


■fa >s 

d as 

-d 

co 4 
Cm X 
4 aa 
-g 4 4 

3 as 4 

a §*-p 
a 


4 

JU 

Is 

4 

t- 


s 

o 

4 


Fh 

v 


VI 

ci 

<v 

^ a 

d 4 P 


as as ^ 


p p 
4 d 
> ^ 

o .a 

4 

_ 4 

e« ® .9 

4 "S P 
bC 43 03 
co bfi 
03 Cm 

1 «o 
•S . a 
22 . S b 

4 >i O « 

as as *43 p 


>> a 
^ o 

TS p 

4 4 

> 


4 

an 

*4 


p 

o 

4 


co 

Ph 

4 

as 


p 

p 
o 

4 
4 <u 

S3 


a 


as 

a 

3 

B 

S 

o 

o 

M 

H 

O 


w 


"d ^ 
is 4 

g.S 

m g 

§& 
4-> as 

4 4 
4 d 

w S 


VI 

M 

o 

4-> 

o 

0) 

a 

VI 

2 .a 

^ >» 
a -m 

Cf> 3 ^ 

g £ 4 

.H ^ 4J 

o o o 

^ £ £ 

HHH 


PS 

Cm ~ 


4 

> 


4 4) 

■T3 P 4 
C- 4 4 w 

cj bC fa *3 


CO P 

° e3 (3 

2 4 

4 a p 
as S o 

^ 4 


C§ 

•> a 
c , 
O fa 
v 4 

s a 


CO 

p 

4 

Ph 

a 

o 

4 

4) eS c3 
P 


P 

« . 

vi U 
€Q QJ 

w a 


a 


eg P 4 

w as a 


-d 

o3 

O 

PP 


P 

P 

o 

U 


Vi I 

f . • ^ 

o ^ 
.22 =3 
> PQ 
fa 

4 
Ph 
P 

CO 


CO 


as -fa 


.P oS 


4 O 


c3 


co 

*d 

fa 


p 

o 

• H 

+J 

4 

JB 

^4 


« i—i 

« a m 

c as JS 


^ o 
P PP o 


-d 

p 

cS 

4 

fa 

O 

a 


2 

$ 

Ph 

4 


P 

■d M 

i pH 

o3 oS 

a O 

4) —i 

fa fa 

«3 o 


TS 

4 

as 

CO 

P 

fa 

P 


fa 

O 


i 

a 

o 

4 

P 

O 


4 73 

« 4 ) 


4 


P 

as 

w S* 4 

rn r^* 


§ 5 o 

4 to 

H 

_ > 

CO r r ^I 

a pq ip -d 


4 

b 

c3 

i| 

bc^ 

25 13 

.a pq 


4J 

p g 

O "4 

4 «« 

4 ° 

as -d 

+j fa 

. oS 

>1 o 
as as 


• flj 

£ fa 4 
^ 03 PS 
as 

a 4 ^ 
co CO ^ 
.2 P 4 
3 4 S 

a ph^ 


4 
fl 

O ® 



























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


227 


G ^ g 
G L? 4 

g s 5 

eg 

fG 


4 52 
G G 
4 4 
4 _G 


§ £ 
a 5 
.5 <u 

J & 

U c/2 


11 

PS o 

-_I 


co 

a 

o 


o M 

x to 

a 4 

q, g h 

03 G S 

8 a 

o 

4 

-G H 

<u >5 a 

*+*•$ 

W _Q T3 


k2 

§•§ 

?H • pH 

4-* 

co 

• ^H O 


G ' 

• pH Cs3 


a) a> 
is w 
o £ 
> a 


I 

S 

o 

4 


>>^3 

' g 


g 


4 


g 

o 


. a 

>5 O rr* 

-£ g w W 

g a +-» 

G -rH «*- 
O .2 o 

4 

t3 ,4 4 

G «JD » 

£ g § o _ 

W S -§ K -43 


co 

4 


a 

<4-, g 
0 U . 
S j 
If 

G 3 

-G w 

o 


G 

O >> 

4 H 


0) 


4 

4 


G 
G 

bo O £ 
G U ■G 

a a 
g • a 

S J2 o 

4 « 

'g -G 

4-> G 

.52 G 


(j flG fl 
G G G 
O -G G -G 

-fj ■+■> 

"2 ^ 

o J& 
a ^ 

a § 

O G 
4 1*1 
co © 
o >> 


g G 

+-> a 

co 2 

•pH O 

*G 4 


G CO 
O co 

• pH rtj 
•W 

-G H 
G O 
Cu G 
o 

PX*tS 
O , 

O I? ' 

© •'-' 

- 4 1 

•o < 
l> G ■ 


a G • 

O G 

■£ £> G 

x3 a 

g s *g 

a 

a^ 1 ft 

U-i **h 


a 

8 ,• 
4 4 
to 4 

4-> 

0 ) —> 

-G -G 

a 

>» a 

-Q O 

~o ^ 


v 

<v 

W 


c 

G 

O 

o 


G 

a 

a 
- 
• H 

ci 

-G 

u 


a 

a ^ 

• G a> 
G fl 


G 

<y 52 

L_, 03 

a p 

fn 


0) ^ 

UmH 


g to oj 

2^ 2 

—( g 

G o 

G 

w o 

t-i o 

Si ^ 

_Q co 
4) GD rt 

age 

o 

O -PS -t^ 

^ o .a 

r. G i— 

<u -m 


a 

4) 

a 

4> 


• 

"X3 

G 

G 

O . 
to 

_S to 

o g 

G b£i 
^ G 

>5 8 

X3 «2 

OJ 4) 


a to a to 

ga 

*' -1 -S . 4) 

to a j? 5 

S3 .2 q 

S l I 2 

a a J ^ 

M g o 4) 

4> ° G 

4> rt 4J 6® 4J 

Sh ^ r\ <V T\ 

2 n CJ ^ O 

r 13 G "E « *£ 

H 4) £ X i 


a a a 

O 40 ^ 


G 

• *4 

co fl 
to rs 
4) 4» 


to 

tH 

4> 

-Q 

a ' m 

4> W) 2 

a g-8 

o 

O G ^ 

£ 2 .a 

H 8 £ 


G3 

G 

O 

o 

4) 

to 


CO 


G 41 

G 4 

.2 g 

c n ^ 
co 

|> «5 

G 4) 

O 4 
4> -t-> 


G 

41 

-Q 

a 

4) 

•G 

a 

4> . 

C/2 >> 

1 1 

£•■6 


X! >> 

4) 4-^ 

-G 1 PS 
4 S 
£ O 
4 4> 


T3 

to 5 h 

4 4 

M _i_) 


a 

G 


G 

H 


-PH 

G 


a a 
rt 8 » 
a «I 

O 4 •<- 

a -s a 

G 5 

4 Q 

S ^ O 

i«=< -D 4 


fG 

4 

i 

G 


G 

O 


4 

G 


G 

O 

Sf-H 

to 

.a 


G 

'G 


4 

be 

J3 


G 

^4 

CO 

4 

G 

fl 


CO 

4 


a t; a ,h g 

a> 4 g >5.52 

p~h ri _i_> _i_i 

4) U O 

a o s 

PS 


fG 

HHO 


G G 
G G 

a a 


CO 

G 

4 

fen 

II 

ll 

o o 

a ^ 
H H 


i 

G 
4 
be 

-t-> 

G 
to 
G 

G 

4 
G5 

a- 

G 
G 
4 4 

| G 

03 &h 

m 4 


G 

o 

' pH 

4 

4 


co 

4 

bo 

T3 

G 

• t—» 

4 

4 

G 

fG 

H 


JS 

o 

8 

G 

fl 


a 

a 

• pH 

Cfl 

/: 

• H 

CO 

CO 


S i 

o ^ 

4 » 

4 4 
> bfi 

•ri Sh m 

h c3 c3 

§ -f? .a 

0) o ' 

5 co 

4 - 


G CO 
& 4 

a g 

4 

a 
x 

4 


^ © *3 


Jh 4 

fn ^ 

a «s 4 

co 

O 

a 

G 

G 

a 

G 

o 


o 

G ° 


8 


G 

2 J 5 

O *S 

u a 


03 

• fin 

« *£3 
o> 

*43 -G 


CO 

G 4 

'a g 

•5 3 

T3 

° g 

H g 


4 

G 

G 


4J 

G 

4 

-G 

• pH 

4 


"O 

4 
; co 

F*» CO 
G 4 

co 

a % 


CO 
4 
CO 

G 

4 _ 
a d 

X H 
4 co 


4 


G 

o >> 

.g < ^•'g 


fO 


G 

a 

CO 

OP 

CO 

fl 

x -=t 


fl KS 

fl £ 

g 

o <! 8 

















228 


The Annals of the American Academy 


05 

W 

H 

H 

H 

t-i 

a 

a 

o 

u 

H 

OS 

< 

Ph 


y 


a 

a 

o 

U 

y 

• H 

f- 

CQ 

• pH 

Q 

^■H 

cj 

a 

o 

co 
co 
<U 

a 

o 

U 


-a 8 

y 43 

■*-> 4-> 

J a 
« a 

o 

,L u 

y « 

.a -5 

>5 

pJD 


O 


o 

CO 
-*—* 

CO 

• pH 

CO 

S3 

o 

U 


y 


a 

a 

o 

V 

*3 

s- 

•+J 

C 

y 

u 

y 

4-> 

c« 

-t-J 

C/2 


0) 

^3 y 
45 4 -j 

ts.-s 

45 fl 

5 a 

L u 

45 « 

O ifi 

£ ^ 
o > 


o 

CO 

-4-> 

CO 

• 

CO 

c 

O 



i 

a 

S3 

O 

y 

4) 

43 


a a 

o a 
w © 
co ® 


a * 

8 x! 

45 £ 

•2 JZ 

co 0) 


oS5 
*3 w 

i| 

o *» 

45 


U 

45 

42 

a 

45 




45 . 

4-> y 

>> 3 45 


CO 

(h 

45 

42 

a 

45 


8 * 


Si 


a 

i 

*-< 

Cu 


2 

B 

5 

O 

Pc 

o 

l-t 

H 

C5 

ta 

W 


T3 h 
u y 
a ta 
® "y 

CQ 45 
S Ql, 

o ^ 

*J3 43 

8 3 
SB 


X) 

Si 

o 

PQ 


o 


^ CO 

c$ c3 

a O 

• H 

l-T-j 4-) 

g 45 

ccS —i 
45 

50 *3 

45 
S3 
y 
be 

ti 

o 


d 33 
42 

co 
«3 


1 

P? co 
2 c3 
Q. 05 


y 


8 

m 


ri 3 

a ® w 

O rt • —i 

2 *J3 +3 3 

y y J 


y y 

53 ® 

o 


y 

a 

cj co 
C/2 c3 


y 

t 

a » 

M 


ft 

y 


i 

y 

jy 

'y 


o3 

t-< 

y 

33 

y 

be 

co 

c3 


y ^4 ” y 

a s s? | >4 a 


cS y fa 
C/2 be 


o3 

C/2 


31 

O 


co 

y 

bo 

X3 

3 


tn 

eS 4 
si a 

4-> O 

co .33 

• »H -I 5 

bo y 

y y 

"45 


>* 

42 


• *—i 

c$ 

^ . 
$ -g 

3 1 

Si 

O 


y 

J X 
w <U 

^ s*H ^ 
rH 4J 

i”*s 


'X CO 

•2 y 

CO . P-4 

Cm 

33 

y 33 

h O 
c3 y 

co X3 
y a 
1/3 2 
a 03 
y y 

« IS 

'O co 

2 ^3 >» 
^ <3 iQ 


y 

H 

i5 

in 

a 

a 

e3 

ffi 

y 


t^a 

y 

CO 

Si 

y 

>-s 

y 

£ 


Si 

o 

Si 

y 

a 

o 

• 

CO 

1/3 

*2 « 


a ^ 


o « 

pH ^ 

a 

go 


y 42 


y 

•m 

CO 


42 


X3 

y 


2 

6 *s -d 
•5 a ^ 

t 9* o 

O <5 42 












































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


229 



a 

-d 5 x 




•-M 


2 a 


• p-H 


igai 

4- 5 • p-< cj ^ 

d -2 wj'oJ 
fl 

csO g 



•« u-a 

® > a 

*H - 


CO ^ 

M M 


tH 


t> 2 


a 

a 

o 

+J 

O 


O 4J 


a 

o 


'a £ 

cj <U fc? >5 

Cj 

* ^ a v 

<v d .9 > 
bC "d £« *rt 

-2 So®* 8 

b S cj & 


-O 
oj 
> 

<u 
o 
0) 

* t$ 

n ^ 
d 9) 

fl n* 

.2 « 

+-> d 

eS <D 
co bD 

M g. 

& o 


3 ^ 

d 

bS 

CO rt 

4J 2 

bo « 
*2 


f I 

- fl « 

88 d «2 


a ^ 


a> 

a 

d 


d 

»-c 

V 

d 


.. g d 60 

ti ^ 


t* 

<y 


3 «t 3 a 

« g 2 2 .• 

3.S & S.2 

HH O > d •*-> 


& 

o 

J4 

d 

Q 

r& 

t5 

o 

fc 


3 J> 

cj ®3 

a g 

S o 

-3 

03 23 

* > 'T' 


V 

2 


0) 


>-c 

Ph -U 
**-i 

<o o 


i 


a 

o 

^3 

cj 

3 

O 



















Election Officials Party Committees 


230 


The Annals of the American Academy 


4) 

41 


B 

B 

o 

U 

44 

4 

• H 

u> 

-j 

.a 

Q 

13 

G 

O 

• 44 

co 

CO 

4> 

t- 

bO 

n 

o 

U 


■s 8 
%£ 
^ a 
ff a 

L u 
$s ^ 


o 

co 

co 

• pH 

CO 

G 

O 

u 


8 

4-> 

44 

• pH 

B 

B 

o 

41 

fl k h Jl 

s b a .2 
a is 3 -g 

.5 4 2 5 

G fl y 4> 

-G g 2 X 

U co H w 


03 

a u 
« P 

« § 

CO 4> 

S T J 

-5 £ 


a g 

4> 3 

Cl /“s 


a © 


8 
4~> 

•M 

. • pH 

£ a 


g ja a 

a s 

P "G O 

CJ 4 4 


4 

4 


a 

a 

o 

U 

13 

-4 

G 

41 

CJ 

4> 

44 

-2 

CO 


4i 

-tJ £ 

4) 53 
4-1 .pH 

g a 
s a 

i ° 

I CJ 

U 0 ) 

8 3 

s ►» 

O 


O 

CO 

co 

• pH 

CO 

G 

o 

u 


8 

4-> 

4-> 

• pH 

a 

a 

o 

• 4 

G ^ 34 4 

•fill 

A 5 2 x 
U co H W 


Ui 

4> 

-G 

4-> 

o 

-g 

G 

o3 

G 

o3 

a 

u 

• pH 

G 

-G 

u 


>>.a 

D- 
"G ** 

- 3 

4 03 
4> 

'ey 4 

4-> 

co o 

• pH i 


CO 

Sh 

fl k Cc 
2^2 

0^ 

a 

g 5 § 

8fl 

•leg 

o 

i 2 2 

CJ co H 


a 


pM 

CJ 


4-> <3 

4) £ 

4 +4 

13 g 

CO a 

*H 

<D 

n >> 

a g 

1 o 

a a 

r 9 *G O 

w 4> O 


a 


p .a 


i 


•h *-« 

4-> 

CO 

■ pH 

CO 'P 

S- _4 

- a 

'C 
o 

+4 

G 
G 
4 
CO 

O ,G 

4 
03 
4i 


? M G 
G 

-G 


-G 

a 

4> 

a 


a 4i 

•c 2 

4-j o 
co 3 
IG M 

^ p. ■ 


g V, 

4> 4) 


i « 

a £ 
a a 
a p 

o 

41 y 

G 

o gg 

4) 

sT o3 

>> y 


• u 

>s 4> 

t-< 4-4 

G ei 


a 


G 

+-> 

C$ 


t 


* 

H 


(4 

o 


CO 

O 

a 

a 

o 

4 


a 

2 


4 f_ 
G 4 
O -Q 


*G 

4 


*P 

4 

K> 


G 
G 
4 60 
4 4 

'y O 


>> 

e3 

*3 

CO 

4 • 

a g 

n 3 O 
y 

fC 4 

P- y 

»—H 

J * 

4-> &C 
*3 3 

1 G .a 

a ® 


G3 g 'ts 

uG a 

s- s 

i^g 

2 'p 

* ■■ i 

4 


TO y 


G 

a 


•P 

4 


c3 

4 


(4 

G5 rG 

a v 

4 

a 

4 

G 

O 


fr^ *hh 

a ^ 

. 8 « 

G G <« 
G G 4 
O O ,G 
4 4 44 


4 

ja g 

y | 

»4 >4 

r 

4 

a 


4 

G 

o 


{? sj 

a § 

» pH pJ 

P 

D. 4 


PQ 


'g ^ 

S3 4 
o 0 

Q *s 

4 

_ tH 

G 

O ^ 

• •■H —p 

-*—> rM 

4 4 
4 a 


W 




c3 

(4 

4 

G 

4 

be 

(4 

O 


CO • 
C3 § 

o 

flj • pH 

a -g 

03 

CO 4 


a a 

O 4 
4 fl 
y 4 
G 

2 44 

a « 

CO 

o3 

G 

O 


4 _G 
4 44 

13 ’> 

<4 „ 

G co 4-> 5 
PP cj.2 

te Ja 3 "o 

ft G D. 4 


as 

O 

" g 

TS “ 

G 

2 53 

8 - 

13 Q 

«H O 
O *43 
4 G —. 

a cs ° 

G 4 
CO ft 4 


G 

O 


*P 

J4 

G 

O 

« 


o 

CJ 


a 

o . 

*44 L 

'P G 
. JS co 
G G 
a 4 

^ p4 
CO 44 

4 

co O 

is 

4 ” 
4 


G h 
° G 

S § 

a 8 

a £ 

co 4 

_» 4 33 

.2 52 3 

§ S s 


G 
o 
bo'—j 
y 

o 


G X O. 
> X y 

G ■<; o 

y ^ w 


co n3 

S 

4 9 
03 

*1 ■§ 

a^ 

1 « 

2 -8 * 2 
ej G 3 
O ft.52 -g 
x « ga 


c^ 


& 

o 

G 

Q 

•5 

G 

C^ 




























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


231 


a 

S3 

O 

CJ 



M 

cd 










C3 










0 





>a 

4-> 





-S3 

bd / g‘ 
4 s 
•*-> .2 

-2 fl 

4) 9 
v —' t> 

, S3 
S3 O 
co 4 

a «> 
•3 5 

-s3 M 
U 


A o 

§ ^ 

O -P 

4 . 


43 4J 

« o 
cO 'r* 

4 J3 

CO 


C$ 

a 


4) 

> 

• ^ 
-*-> 

S3 

4 

4 

x 

4 


4) 

£ £ 
^•a 

c/2 a 


a' 73 a 
«£ "3 Jd 

S3 -p 
O 4J 

2 *S «0 

4 T3 

*0 frH 4 

a »■§ 

4 g 4 

S O » < 
o 4 


>» 2 

£1 

■S § 

.2 

^ a 

cO 4 


=3 


p 

o 

•p 

cO 

d 

4> 


Pi 

4> 

a 

4> 

a 


> 

S3 
O 
4 

4> 

4-> 

S3 _ 
•P Pi 


a 

o 

w 4 
m 2 
Pi 

-S3 « 

4 so 
cO 

4> +5- 
4 


a a 

o <o 

— tL 

CO CO PH ^ 


4> 

b3 


S3 

S3 

O 

a 

-o ^ 

_, co 
bd a 

-sl 

g 3 

S 3>c 

a 41 


JD 

S3 

1 

1 

1 








13 

a 

S3 

O 

ft 

pi 

a 

0 

4 

a 

4 

a 

0 

a 

-0 

4 

-O 


3 




4 

S3 

O 

-2 

'd 

a 

4 

tt 

S3 

4 

-S3 

•$3 

a3 

4-> 

cO 

4 

rl 

4 

•P> 

4 

-2 

d 

G$ 

a 

#s 

>> 

HI 

S3 

Sb 

4-> 

S3 



>> 

•*-> 

CO 

a 

’4 

0 

4_J 

a 

a 


e> 

CO 

S3 

4 

■P 

g 


a; 

0 

p 

bd 

• -4 

4-> 

4-i 

» 

0 

4 

0 

4 


4 

•P 

O 

> 

pi 

4 

S3 

O 

a 

0 

4 

-O 

nd 

4 

rg 

O 

P-H 

S3 

O 

• 

a 

cO 

>> 

H-> 

S3 

4 

> 

S3 

O 

a 

a 

0 

4 

-a 

4 

s3 

4 

-Q 

bd 

4 

4 

4 

-p 

■p 

"a 

O 

H 

bd 

S3 

s3 

each 

S3 

4 

a 

CO 

S-. 

0 ) 

S3 

4 

?* 

a 

a 

0 

4 

4 

4 

-S3 

4 

sd 

O 

a 

0 

p 

p 

H-> 

4 

-2 

7j 

a 

0 

4 


i 

S3 

4 

t>c 

ng co 
id «3 
(3 

to S3 

rd o 

CO •«—t 


« I tJ 

° 4 -2 

2 pH 4 

1 I ’g 

C/2 8 4 


I I 

cu * 

S3 « 



i 

4> 

P“H 

P V 

o _ 

PI cO 
to Oh 
c3 *3 

4? -a 
a | 
s a 

co 'eo 
4 2 . 

M S oi 

-a S a 
a S o 

b M+j 


c3 

p 

4) 

a 

4> 

bfl 


ft 

o 


co 

SO g 

o 

fl) • F^ 

a o 

S3 ^2 
C/2 4> 


4) JL, 

a § 

d OC 

bd m 
S3 & 

03 rl 

to a 

P o 
4 *J3 
4 Id . 

£S 3 
° 8 „ 
2 Oh 41 

I ^ 

C /284 


S3 

O 

• -h 

•u 

4) 

4 


a >» 

0 5 


M .— 

0 '■g 
'43 a 

^ a 

cO 4 

0 . is 


-2 3 

'4 y 
-S3 

4 0 


•s ^ 

M • H 

rrt « 


0 >> 

w -Q 


-S3 

co 3 

4 % Dh 


co 

4 -g 
CO .5 

8 g 4 
co 2 -S3 

§ 

CO 

sO 

a d 
2 Oh 

& 2 

g W 0 

X 

4 

w a 


co 
4 

4-> 

ft cO 


-S3 

s3 



-O 


cO 

Oh 

8 

cO 

S3 co 
O 4 
•P CO . 

to S3 4 
S3 4 d3 

iff 

.S3 W Oh 


























Election Officials Congressional District 


232 


The Annals of the American Academy 


Cfi 

w 

w 

H 

H 


S 

O 

V 


<u 

<v 


3 

a 

o 

U 

03 

• pH 

u 

4-> 

co 

Q 

"3 

a 

o 

• -4 

03 

03 

U 

& 

d 

o 

U 


V 

4) 


a 

a 

*3 

4-> 

a 

03 

o 

03 


Ifl 


8 

s a 

o *9 

- § 
w a 

o 

03 -3 

53 ^ 

O £ 


o 

03 

4-> 

03 

• rH 

CO 

a 

o 

U 



o 

03 

03 

• 

co 

a 

o 

U 


S £ & 

a d .3 

•a 3 $ 

03 

t-i 


d 

rd 


UHcfi 


rd 4-T ^ 

2 d C» 


d 

03 


• r—4 r ~\ 

•p-t d 

-4-> ^ 

co 


2 ^ ft 

t Jjs 
a 


i & 

Ja g 

g 


d 

>i'T3 

4-3 03 

d g ^ 

o ? 


03 

a 


03 


03 03 


03 
2 
p 

o « 

*S X >3 

03 "o3 

d id • 

o P3 n3 « 
£ -2 
« 23 tS .tJ 
ft d _2 d 

O g 03 | 

O 

03 


£ 8 

h 3.a 


d >4 ^ 

«§ 2 c* 

d a 3 

.S3 2 « 

s § s 

S H co 


>» 

rQ 

'V 

A! • 

mZj rt 

8.2 
'« q 
o' > 

I © 

a o 

.9 <u 

d 4-> 

g -3 

^ 03 


"0 d3 

03 03 


d 

03 

a 

o 


a 

o 

03 


.2 d 

*h d 

4-> g 

w .2 


03 

-2 

"03 

03 

f-i 

03 

a >>pq 

§ d "d -O 

a a -g - 

^ 9 4J <y 
O ft d 03 

> c 2 
ci a -d 
r d « 4J 


41 

oT 8 

tfTJ 

d 

03 d 
d 4-3 d 

S >3 8 

a M g 

Jj-oS 

4-3 03 9 

.-9 o a 

a « 8 


03 

*4 _. 

03 T3 i 
d3 , 03 d 

a <* o g 

§ a - « 

y OO 03 o 
d 4J 03 
O O 03 (U 
^ 03 - E « 

to -2 

■S d ^ w 
d <y _ « 

~ a 3 - a 

4-3 P o >s o 

*4-4 03 *Q 4-3 


9 >» 

2 »H 

a $ 

.S3 03 

_d 5 


03 


d3 ^ 
a >3 

a ^ 

2p ^ 

* 4-4 03 *q 
u 
03 
-Q 

a 

03 


a 

03 


- I 

43 P 
03 O 

4 « 

>3 >3 
4-3 44 

d d 
d d 


A o ° 

O 03 03 


*2 +3“ 

§.a 

w 8 

d £ 
o ^ 

4-> ^d 

03 03 
03 d 

SB 


n3 

t -4 

d 

O 

PQ 


o 

V 


d 

o 

a a 

03 

03 a 
44 9 03 

.2 03 h 

d 03 •£ 
•r* 03 03 
bD 03 ^3 

.9 d -Q 
> 03 d 
, ft d. 

O 


d3 

• fH 

d 

ft 

03 42 

d d 
d 

03 * 4-4 

03 y 
C« -d 
d 

03 rO 


03 d 
03 y 

« P. 

4 -. a 

g 8 

a S 

al 

CO 

09 -d 


d 

03 

a 

d 

m 


d 

d 

d 

o 


d 

o 

i 

-4-> 

c3 

CO 


fl a ^ 

. ^-4 —4 


03 -S 

03 m 


d 03 

8 pi 


x ft 


a 

o 

Fh 


d b 
o £ 

d p 
ft ^3 

2.2 

d ^ 

co £3 

b0 03 ft 

I 2^ 

§ r 

>>W *o 





























Party Committees 


234 


The x4nnals of the American Academy 


TJ 

y 

-M. 

y 

OJ 

s 

£ 

o 

X 


u* 

a. 

+-> 

03 

na 

0 ) . 
* b 

W 3 


y 

y 


B 

B 

o 

U 

y 

Cl 

• r—< 

O 

y 

Ul 


ns 

*-> 

c3 

d 

• r-4 

a 

o 

£ 


o 


o 

to 

•*-> 

co 

"oo 

d 

o 


' .i *o 
P -a i> 

§ 

g © 

o g 

g O cl £ 
d 3 o O o 
y -*-> > 


a 

a 

o 

y 


o a 


y 

«s 

y 

o 


y 

y 


a 

a 

o 

U 




y 

“ oj 

y -m 

4-4 

y ’§ 

w a 

o 

y ® 
y -g 

sa £ 

o £ 


a 5 5 

UtfiB 


o 

W 

4-j 

to 

*co 

d 

o 


a 


a » 
B v 

w rn 


o 

y 


y 

d 


<v 53 

w a 
o a 

rd -c 

w a 

§ 53 


a 


y 

y __ 
£ y y 

HH 4-> S-c 


„ d 
y tx) 


y 

y 

4-4 

4-> 

• 

a 

a 

o 

U 


d 

d 

o 

U 


y 

H3 a; 
y .J3 

4-4 4 _> 

y a 
h a 

o 

tL u 

S3 a 
y -g 
© ^ 
o 


o 

CO 

4-> 

CO 

*35 

d 

o 

O 


« ►, * 


=« *4 

a 5 

.5 y 

5 § 


UmH 


1 4 

a $ © 

.2 t> y 

d & -d 
-d 5 -m 

UwO 


y 

y 


a 

a 


2 d3 

<u 


o 

y 


d 
d 
o 
y 

.9 -a 

y 4-> 
a> t_ 
e8 & ° 

a « 

o a y 

.2 < a 

*4 

c 




































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


235 


• i 

•e 2 

a & 


*8 a 

o 

u> 

_ •*-' 

4> 

■g 

jg 3 g 

W S-3 


.J. 

Ui 

Oh 


4> • 

■s b 

fa 

w a 


Ui 

fa. 


a 


T3 

4> 


^ a 
w a 


Hb 4> <V 
H fa 42 
fa « 4-> 

£ a • 

“ fa 4J Ul 

S!* 1 

■m 4-> *r! 

y 4-) _. u< 

c -a t) a 
.5 S y — 

o 3 4-> • — 

s a o jh 

u § <u a 

p-i 8 r y <3 



• u 

H 

g g cl 

§ a •£ 
-s | S 

8 g ^ 

rt ^ j3 

5--S S 


a 

o 

£ 

V 

a 

a 



1 

0 ) 

S 

42 

o 

fa 


1 

0 ) 

4 > 

4 >J 

42 

o 

fa 

fa o 
o 

4 -> O 


# 

- 4 -> 

<u 


4 -> 

• pH 

<v 

&§ 

o 


-M 

o 

a 

• pH 

a 

a 


a 

a 

a 


O 

o 

o 

# 

o 

o 

#\ C 4 -H 


V 

Ul 

o 


o 

a 

Ui 

U-l 

tj ° 


fa< 



.fa 



fa .. 

.— CO 

O 4 ) 

o 

42 

CJ 

fl 

'o 

a> 

fa 

>> 

o 

a 

fa 

<u 

fa 

o 

Oj 

a 

V 

Ui 

&, 

fa 

O 

fa 

a 

4 > • 

fa •- 
fa. y 

tH 

o 



c 

fa 

a 

.fa 

fa 

42 




y 

m 

o 

N 

V 

42 

•u> 

o 


>> 

u 

s 

CO 

CO 

y 

O 

y 

fa 




fa 

« 

T3 

• H 
00 
0> 


s- 

c$ 


ps 


Ul 


o 


y 

fa 


y 

y 

£ 


y 


fa 

y 

a 

<D 

U 


a 

a 

o 

V 



.a 

be 

<2 

-0 
• pH 

CO 


g’S 


a 

ca 

a 


O g I 
^ ^ 8 


2 ’fa fa >» ■§ 

ag a s-3 

I iifif 

I-M • -* A) OS 

U > cfiU 


co »J3 

• pH 

>> £ 


fa 

fa 

bC 

Ui 

O 


fa 

§ 

y 


0) 

.u> 

o 

> 


4) 

*-> 

4x 

fa 

CO 

>> 

fa si 

"T3 r» 
»o fa 

-d a 

S 'u 

a a 


y 

y 

OJ 


CO 

Ui 

y 


1« 


fa JM -d 

fa «a o> 

a ° a ^ 

u U. 4 > £» 

• rj ^ D 2 
a 3 ^3 ^ 

42 *-> 

CJ o 


fa 

fa u 

a H 


© 

u o 


•Sl| 


fa 

42 g ^3 

UmO 


g £ .2 
. fa 

b fa 

fa > 

CO ,—, 
CO .—* 
0> C$ 


id’s 

1 g I fr 

•rj fl) 

8 

u o 


a | 

8 ! 

** * 

V 

fa T3 

'8 9^ 

SLfal 

<u fa 

. « i S 
■§3 3J^ 
S-.I'S 
•I 5 §o 

U 


a a 
a *3 

<u 

w ci, 
fa ^ 

° 'S 

«*-i fa 

o <u 


co 

b >» 

b fa 
fa 


a 


.fa o 

Ui oo 

a fa 

^3 


• pH 

a 

a 


fa 

^3 


to 


CO 

fa 

O 


a 

o 

u. 


U -Q 


’> ° 
> *^3 
a; o 

N 4> 

'fa ^ 
fa Jh 

be w 

_I 


T3 
v 

H-> 

C 

42 /-s «*h 
CU O fa 


i b 

* -ad 
3 £ 

O 5 
w fa 

b M 
° -fa ^ 

4J ^-> fa Ui 

a o fa 
•3 «u< a; 

a rt -g u 

o s g J S 

-0 fa *d 


Ph 



and state convention. 




















Party Committees 


236 


The Annals of the American Academy 


4 

0 ) 


a 

a 

o 

V 


4 

4 


a 


o 

V 


'V 

(U 

+-> 

O 

V 

s 

£ 

o 

a 


o 

tn 

4-> 

w 

• rH 

x 

a 

o 

V 


4 42 
•fa -fa 

4 *a 

4 fl 

a a 

8 4 
4 -fl 


m 


o 

to 

4-> 

CO 

• rH 

CO 

fl 

o 


^2 8 
4 43 
•fa -fa 

J a 
w a 

o 

A>u 

8 4) 
8 -fl 


&S 

O 


>> 

-fl 


© 

£ 

CO 

• rH 

CO 

fl 

O 

u 


• rH 


• rH 

• rn 


fl. 


O, 

fl. 


4_ft 


4-> 

4-> 


fl 


fl 

fl 


-fl 



T 3 


4 

# 

4 . 

4 

• 

-4-> 

4 

>> 

ft- 

^ - 

4-> 

4 

>» 

4 

a 

ja a 

4 

fl 

5 

a 

w a 

H 

a 


1 

| 

n3 

4 

H> 

fl 

fl 

t-1 

r 4 

o 

GC 

o 

4-> 

pri- 


dec- 

peti- 

r\ 

CO 

o3 

o 

i 

4 

-Q 

03 


fa 

a 

o 

.a 

a 

4 

nd 

o 

CD 

4 

t- 

O 


fl u 
C O 

> 

o 

fl 

TD 

>» 

fl 

4 

-fl 

-fa 

Q 

4 

o 

£ 

'fl 

fl 

TD 

JU 

cfl 

«*-i 

4 

-Q 


o 

w _ 
2 o 

rH 

«4H 

o 

O 

o< 

1 

‘fa 

O 

03 

fl 

.a 

4 

£ 

o 

o 

03 

b 

r> 

fl 

X 

>» 

>> 

u 

Ch • rH 
^ 4^ 

. g3 

w 

fl 

-o 

0 , 

4 

4 

a 

4 

fa 

Ah 

w 

4 

Ph 

.2 

*43 

fl 

T2 

flq 

a 

>> b 

«-a 

o 

• rH 

4-> 

4 

Cfl 

fa 

O 

fa 

a 

C/2 


a -5 


l I 

n g«.& 

fl fl 
fl ° 

fa -Q 

4 

P, t3 

4 

fa -fa 

<u *j a s a 
p * 


o 

4 


H 

o 
fl fl 

*3 «a 

g a 

a 8 


A -fl -d 

I s ■§ 

.ti <d 

a '■s 

a § 

o g 
4 


t» 


■ 

fl 

4 

o • 

w 41 

>5 0> 


fl 

fl 

o 

4 


o & S 


4 

fl 

o 


i 

a 

o 

4 


fl 4 

fl *3 -5 _ 
fl g _ a 

fl r O fa 
fl fl, -fa -fa 


ga 

'fl 

03 H 
8 

— S jO 

i & g $s -d 

a 5 s © s 
•I g s g s 

^ y 4)flC 

?a 3 *■« fle 
O c/2 H o 



w 
JU 

p 
>1 

.a >> 

3 -a 


03 


h* s ffl -g 


i | e s 8 

.fl 4 
fl 
-fl 


w h .s 

a a 

4 -d C> 


fa 

8 fa -fa 


C> do H o 


a 


-fl 
fl +■> 
fl 
a 

nfl <J 
fl 


8 8 
•fa 4 

a ^ 

a +-> 

• rH 

4 **-, 
4 O 
fa 

a « 

4 

a a 

4 
4 


a 

o 

t-t 

«4H 

a 

3 

a 

& 

4) 

5 

| 

a 

o 

o 

4> 

fl c 
£ O 
o 


4 4 

-fl -fl 


fl fl 

• rH 

4-> (U 

4 -fa 

fl O 

•3 -a 

4) 4> 

fa 

fl, - 
>» 
4-> 

-fl fl 

41 fl 
fl O 
4> 4) 


4-^ fl 

4 a > 

N fl > 
•H .fl fl 

fl fl o 

fl >J 4 4 

tf-s a 

°|.g-fl 

TC .fa 


fl 

C/2 


- t>0 
>>.0 


fl £ fl ’£ 

a | a o 

• rH Zj *rH 

^ - u 

o* 


03 

4 

fl 

’■fl 

• rH 

T3 

fl 



fl ^ 


5 - 

a 3 

• fl 4 

J 8 G 

O co H 


4 

Ut 

fl 

X 

fl 

4 

t-« 


fl 

fl 

fl a 

4J 4 S 
fl a 

•§!* . 
g >> 
a'3 a 
r* 3 « § 

iasl 

s §■? s. 




t-, 

a 


O ft 'o 


fl 

o 


fl 

o 

fl 

.2 

# 3 

>2 


The character and composition of all local committees are prescribed by the State Central Committee and all members are 
elected at the primary, and each committee fills vacancies in its own membership. 



























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


237 


i 

o 

Oh 

02 

"2 £ 
.a a 
a & 

b ^ 

hS O 

« *3 

Q 02 


^Tl * i—l 

1 -si 
“1 2 
• rH 

£3 >> 

43 .&0 
o3 02 
h to -rt 
Cd ft 43 
02 £ fl . 

» a‘a £ 
SaSa 


i 

o 

43 

0 

in 

(-H 

43 

o 

rt ° 
43 & 

% A 
c/2 O 


>> 

»H 

c$ 

CO 

CO 

V 


<V V O 
0 > co 
+-> ai 

•§ w 


a 


V o 

02 -a 
+-> 02 


>» 

>»-o 


o 

o 


a 


a n 

P 43 'rj 

O *-> 

o o S 

<y « 

a 
o 
o 


D « 0) 

o -p 

•g H .2 


(h 

<u 

02 

a 

p 

a 

a 

od 

+-> 

» 2 

43 nj 

.a 

a g 

u i 

5 a 

V «4H 

-d o 


p >>-d o • 

a b p -5 a 
a w ^ § 

43 CO - **£ C3 
« }) rH ° H 

•1 

a h ^ 3 

i|ii-« 

i O 'P 3 P 

*3 _ a Oh 
u '■d 03 ^ 
d - 1 
03 ^ 

- 

ft S-H . «H-H 

« 03 >J O 

j. g i 

a S4 

+3 d 

bl * a 

°*s 

£> 2 -a a 2 

3 «~n § a 

a 03 Yt -M .O 

1/1 ^ to d 
•C -.2 >> » 
afl a “> 2 

P cd 4 ) 0 

a g® 3 « 

_ .b o £ 02 
- * „ •§ -> 
^ S I X 


c3 

£ 


cd 

t- 

43 

> 


43 

02 

H 


"d 

-*-> b 

o3 0 
02 £ 


t- w 

c3 n 

S.JS 

a a 


43 

0=1 


”5 p 

*43 43 
43 53 
% 03 
43 
43 


•P ° 

a >»3 


43 

f-i 

o3 


O 

43 


^H 

a 

Oh 


02 

a 

43 

a 


a 

o 

43 

P 

a 

o 


c3 


O 

£ 

o 


>> ft 
■H O 


P 

& 03 

od '5 o =5 

43 2 pH E"H 

•3 a 

> o . . 

■So 8 - 2 ~ 

g I a 8 « 

a £ 

p 5 

^ *3 u 3 

0 xn p 

j2 >» > ^ 

•HH 03 5 

o ^ aa ^ 

n ^ O . (j 

H 2 50 £1 w 

d d (h 

a 4 > S.3 g ^ 

8 S I’^’s 2 

1 8 S 


43 03 

^ 5S 
^ o 

43 43 


a 


p 

s£ 

o 


nd 

c 

o3 


^■5 

8 d 

>-* 03 
hO 


O .•5 

u a 9.2 . 

5 a 9 h. g 

•«—1 O Q O 


-d 
. o 

w ©3 

Sd 


cd 43 

4-3 

p 


m 


v> rH 

O G 

W) 4-3 

o3 


43 

*4 

43 

02 

H 


t» 

o 


(4 

o 

«H— 

43 


o 50 S? o 

43 o 


^ > a 


a 


a 

□3 

a 

.p 43 

a b 

r5 43 

C> C/2 


43 

1/1 

P 

O 

03 

(0 

eo 

ed 

53 


t« 

4) 

43 

cd 

T3 

• rH 

P 

8 


co 

rj "fcl 
2 cn 
C3 • ^ 

w> 2 

r!3 O 

.2 U 

3 


0 

p 

o 

43 


t-H 

O 


o 

43 

03 

02 


x 1 I 
-OS 
o 0 

►» 

43 5 

§d3 
o « ^ 


0 43 

Oh 
43 03 

> 


43 

sen- 

on 

its 

rd 

O 

fll • rH 

(3 H 

cj 

0 

w 

8 Oh 02 


t4_, W 

O « 
43 '43 

22 «3 

1:3 24 
o P 

W 43 

t« 


4 

Oh 


cn 1 a 

52 -2 -5 

_o W) 

43 43 g .& 4J 

aslr 

o 2 0 a ^ 

a a 03 s « o 

a -5 > o b 

M '43 03 43 ^ 

< 9 


c 

cd 

a 

.p 

cd 

02 

U 


-d 

43 



>> 

02 

• 

(2 

O 

4-< 

cd 


cd 

4-1 

-d 

rH 

P 

6 

0 

O 

w 

43 

43 

1 3 

M 

43 

"p 

0 

> 

O 

O 

a 

m 

0 

P 

P 

43 

W 

P 

8 


43 

43 

t-H 

02 

H 

c/5 

H 

43 

02 

a 

— a 

as 

• Eh 43 
cn 43 
cn _h 

*m *a 

M [V, 

• rH rH 


“ >» 
CO 

• rH 

> -b 

h 43 
43 

Oh a 
d 43 
ce 


1 

0 

o 

43 


>..-b 

4-> 

S2 P 
P 02 
O P 


43 


>> 

o 

cd 


02 

43 

cd 

43 


a £ 

2 •- 

£ ~o 


in 
4/ 
O 
43 

P 

in w 

K. OT 

9 *b 

— o 

43 41 
43 5 

-4-1.0 

>- a h o 
£? o 3 02 
22 •'i !2 43 

p g 9 43 

O 03 o 13 

3 > 0 H 


cd 
bo 
^41 43 

m "S -p 

^ % 


>> 

9 

9 

a 

0) 


CO 

Ih 

o 

co 












































Party Committees 


238 


The Annals of the American Academy 


X 

45 

— 

45 

ju 

3 

£ 

o 

tn 


Si 

ft 


G> 

CS 


X 

<v . 

■4-> >, 

a G 
,45 G 

w a 


I 

• pH 

fa 

pH 

-fa 

C$ 


T3 

g 

,a ci 

w a 


45 

45 


a 

a 

o 

V 

4-> 

45 

a 

• pH 
8 
& 


x 

0) 

-M 

Cg 

g 


o 

£ 

£ 

o 

K 


i 

6 

o> 

X 

*3 

G 

O 

ifl 

g 

45 G 
ft O 

• »H 

CO 4-> 
45 eg 
rG g 

fa iS 


<u 

> 

ta 

o 

G 

O 


05 co 

ft fc 

>» o 
fa > 


o 

CO 

n 

CO 

"35 

a 

o 

U 


fa ci 

i eg _c; 
45 45 CO 
« G 
f£ 

o 


11 
a ^ 

o 
o 


0) 

G 

o 


g 'S 

eg eg 

a ^ 


co i « 
45 (-T Si 

•fa § a 

a ^ h 

o © 
o H <y 
o ^ 

g © a 

— o fa 

fa§ * 

8 § O 
X — O 

0 ) o o 


o 

1 eg 
45 05 
o 

-t—* 

if 

G .H 


45 

Si 

eg 


O 

a 

45 

G 

o 


^ o 

G 

. • rH 

G 45 
eg 4> 

a a, 


i 

ip 

P< 


i i 

, •- g 

fan &£ 

v <v g 

a “ 3 - 
o . >>-G 

• ri >s -*-< +-> 

"g fa £ 

.S ft*S 

a X 
eg 05 X 

£ g 

A 05 _§ « 

W ti-1 +J ^2 


0) 


45 

G 


05 

41 


‘8 

a 

o 

U 


CJ 


_- 45 
X 05 
45 -2 

«■■§ 

45 G 

fa a 

o 

iu 

45 « 
45 -G 

Sg 

o£ 


a 3 

.S3 45 

a a 

X 45 

CJ CO 


o 

co 

■*-> 

CO 

"55 

G 

O 

U 


a 


fee 


.a m 

O X -t-> 
o.c o 

fa a 

•fa • rH 

45 45 

O G 45 


Si 

ft 


■q a 

g a . 

o- a ^ 

, j • 

S H 45 

h a.s 


» 

CO 

—i bD 
45 45 

Si 

G 

O . 

N 

• pH 

a -a 

eg 45 

E?t$ 
o £ 


i 

a . 

§.£ 

*2 
b fa 

eg H 

ft--. 

X ° 

a ” 

05 45 

_C 


45 

45 


a 

a 

o 


o 

CJ 


45 

X 05 
45 4-> 

t> -"g 

M a 
« a 

o 

L u 

05 45 

45 -G 


«S 

O 


fa 


§ £ a 55 

°5 g r5 


a 

fa 

• PH 

c3 

^3 


fa a; 

«s > 

g G 

eg —c 

S CO 

■ r-i 

t- W) 
M 45 


^ SHG ^ 

45 ^ . 45 w 

ft 5? 45 eg vs 

-G 05 a .a 45 ^ 

U CO H > 


| if 

a 03 

.S3 "45 

S O 

rg 4> 

CJ co 


o 

CO 

-fa 

CO 

• pH 

CO 

G 

O 

U 


.ft » .A 

G 45 

G ^5 


fa 

45 

Si eg 

Cu 

s 

ft 

fa 

0) 

-fa 

45 

45 

—i 

45 O 

4-> 

G3 

«4H 


G> CO 

i i 


-a 

a 

eg 


T3 

rrt t3 
• Cg •>-! 

a ^ 

s 


s >» 

a^ 

45 
45 


i 

45 

45 


a 

a 

o 

45 


X 

co 

45 

G 


gH 

a 


-r- fa 

S a 


co i—i o C. 33 

2< 8 ® a 

mJ 


a h .2 

S « CO 

fl 4J U 

g X O 45 05 

w ^ ^ .2 fa 

,. 45 45 H 

45 45 

fa fa JIJ 

O 45 eg 45 05 

u % a ^ a 


eg 

co 

eg 

Si 

-G 

05 

5? 


G 

45 

a 

45 

45 


a 

a 

o 

45 

H 

45 

.a 

*45 

45 

Si 

fa 


J" CO 

O 45 

.a o 


45 > 
05 

ft£ 


o 

Si 


G 

05 

a 

CO 
CO 

a 4) 

.1 fo 

-M G 

a ® 
2 ° 
ti ft S, 

& o o 

G W) si 

X ^45 ft 

Cg 4) co 

> q g a 

<D •""» fa 

S2J 


G 

X 

45 


■ i 

Si 05 

a X 
ft-g 

W 

fa X 

a a 


G 

G 

O 

45 


to 

45 


45 o 

.S3 ju 

iG 'o; 

la 

l| 

M S 

^ s 

<12 


G fa 


X co 
G 05 
45 05 

> G 
G 
O 
45 


G 

45 

a 

o 

Si 


45 

-M 

G 

■+J 

CO 


a 

2 co 

fa 

-fa 

-fa bjQ 










































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


239 


Si 

a. 


a 


T3 

4 . 

4-> bn 

o £7 
.« a 

W 3 


4 

a 

a 

a 


b> 4 

M CG 


0> 

1 3 ° 

s o J 

2 4 
£ .8 >» 
o -c a 

rzL ■ i 


t 

• **H 

H 

a 


a 


T3 

4 . 

o b 

ji a 

w a 


CO 4 

4 rH 

3 ~ 

5-1 tn 

O 

•&S 

"O 

a * 


a 

Si 

o 

fa 


go 

0) 

H 


fa 

C$ 

a 


4 -g 

4 2 
~+—> C3 
■+J V 
• >—1 

a . 
a § 

8 43 fa 

a 

. • i —i 

a a 

d 4 
fa 

Oh 


o a 


4 03 
4 4 
■+■> d 

*3 u 


§ 3 
8 2 


4 

0 

O 


o 

a 

a *3 
a 4> 

a Oh 


>» 

4-H 




CO 

r3 

!+J 

O 


’3 




3 

CO 


&H-H 

0> 

H 

1 

• hH 


u 

a 

.2 


o 

cd 

S-c 

Cl, 


>> 

+j 



0) 



02 

__a 


CO 

S-H 

4 

0) 

-H 

4-J 

a 


T2> 

3 

5o 

-H 

02 

a 

• 

a 

Td 

4 

4-> 

>> 

4 

a 

4 

•— 

a 

Oh 

4 

a 

o 

4 

4 

_4 

a 

a 

u 

O 

fa 

-a 

a 

a 

4 

03 

4-> 


a a 

o 

2 ^ 
>s 4 

-H-> 4-> 

a U 

£3 a 

o ”4 

4 

O 2 
>> ■« a 

2 -2 £ 
* §5 

gS'a 


c3 

a 

fa 


^ >> 

a ti 
a 

co fa 
-3 a> 

"3 fa 

«4-l 

^ O 

■&a 

o 

04 to * a 
s-< a) re 

o d i3 
lh S a 

r . § St 

I fa 8 
Z 


a 

a 

• >H 

O 

Si 

a 

U 


fa 

O 

z 


I 

a 

o 

o 

a ^ a . 
a l* > a 

a a fa « 

.5 t 8 | 

J g s a 

U $ fa 


CO 

S- 

0) 

02 

a 

4 


a 

a 


x 

4 

TS 

a 

a 

>> * 


o 


a *« 

a ^ 


1 

a 

o 

4 


4 

> 


h 2 

a 5 ^ 

4 !2 — 

a o 

o a 4) 

H Q,} Si 

U tfl E-1 


4 

4 


.a 

a 


a .-a 


o 

CO 

Si 

4 

Cu 


H. 4 . 

L* > a 

H --H 4) 


| a *42 a 

g 4J 3 Jj 

.a a o 

5 g S s 

UtoH 


I 

4 

4 


a 

o 

4 

■+-> 
4 

a 
’3 

4 

HH 

Oh 
03 I—H 

+-> I—I 
* 


a a 

4 ) 03 

a -*- 1 


a 

•M 

o 

04 

a 

Q 


o 


OJ 

4> 


a 

a 

o 

o 

T3 

a 

a 

c\ 

a 

a 

a 


a Jh 


a 


I 

02 .2 X! 

bfi tn 

o -a 


4 

tJO 

ti 

a 


t-H 

o 


a 

a 

^3 Oh 

4 0) 
4 -M 


03 

4 

a 

4 


1 tf 

I § 

s b 

-M rtl 

U c/5 


1 ^ 

a« 

.5 4 

2 3 

rH 


a 

o 

4 

t, 4 

4 > 

a '-2 
M S 
a a 

4 4 
U X 


0 ^ 

o 

■ 

4 . 


4-> 

Si 

■M 

a 

C3 

03 +-> 

• H 

rj W 


a 

Oh 

a 4 

a 


a 

o 

4 

O 03 

Sh 4-> 

^ a 

O 

S-i 

tn 

CO 

a 

H-H 

s'S 

2 g 

< ■'» "< • rH 

4 4 

a 

4 

CO 

a 

a 

o 

4 

CO 

o 

03 

O 

T3 

Si 

a 

£ 


4 

fcH 

Oh 


a 

a -9 

o -O 

a *S • 

8 -S 

*a 

^ a a 
a a 


4 

4 

H 

Ph 


4 ^ 
4 .Tm 
4-> 4 


a ^ 

a 3 

.fcj 4 

a ft 4 a 

03 g u x 

UrnHW 


tH 

4 

g 

a 

c« 

c3 


I - 

O O 

«4-t r-r^ 

u 

4 a 


> a a 

a 4 n 

fe M '0 • 

o o 5 a 

S _a a o 

^ 4 bO'rt 


or -»-> 


a 

a 

4 

co 

o 

03 

4 


« 

a . >» 
S 4 a 

a 4 'O 

a rrt to 
otn 4 
a o a 


4 

a 


4 

a 


a 

a 

o 

4 

4 

03 


>> « 
Si Si 

a 4 

a ^ 

a d 

Oh ? 

a ^ 


a n,^ "O 

4 .tr -o> w 
2 -I b o3 -a *o 
!_£H O Oh CO a rH 


4 

o « 


a 

a 

o 

03 

a 

3 

O 


4 4 

a 4 >% 

5 a § 
a a 
a o| 

o z? P- 

o> a a 
« oi 
a a ce 


« 4H 
8 © 
g ~ a -3 

2n03 a _ 


CO 

K*» 

a 


4 

4 


OmHW 


a 

o 

4 

4 

> 

• ^ 

a 

4 


4 

4 














































Party Committees 


240 


The Annals of the American Academy 


© 

© 


a 

a 


© 

a 

• rH 
© 
© 

ft 


T3 

V 

4-1 

© 

© 

w 

£ 

O 

w 


V 

4 —* 

Cfl 

a 

• rH 

a 

o 

£ 

£ 

o 

ffi 


o 

CO 

44 

co 
" co 
C 
o 

o 


S- 

ft 


4-4 

c3 


r d 

© • 
4-4 

« c* 

,2 a 

w a 


a 

£ o 

- 4 -> ^ 

• »H 

* 42 
© 

*- 4 J 

a O 
co £2 

© a 

a ^ 

4 a 
Z o 


CO 

£- 

0) 


«g "C ft 


42 

P 


© 


a 


.n ja 

*S £ 

S3 > 

g? o 

o *■> 


. © 43 T3 

42 © P 
O oi a 

© >» ^ £ 
d • 

d a .a o 


© -g 
£ a 

4-4 © 

1 a . 
| s % 
8*~.2 
© g 2 

(3 g £ 

o a & 


u 

ft 


a 


-O 

© 

8 - 

,2 a 

w a 


i 

a> 

(H 


OP CO 

g 8 

2 ■*-* 
a o 

**■ 


g> o -tJ 
a w ^ 


cn 

<0 

a 

a 

a 

© 

43 


t* C 4 
O 'M 


a 

o 

CO 

«4 


>» 

0) 


ta _co ya 

CO 

>>3 £ 

ffi o* « 


-2 a 


V i— 

ft - 


;^a 

+J 4 O 

f- 1 e+4 3 

£ O £ 


4 -> 

o 

> 


a 

o 

u 


8 

42 


2 a 
o .a 

tc « 


8 

"© 

CO 


u a 

ft g 

© a 

- .2 ^ 

a; 43 44 a 

a 2 2 43 


3 -B 

a > 


e5 

a 

• rH 

t- 

du 

-f-> 


O 8 .5.0 8 


8 

4-» 

4-> 

a 

a 

3 

>j 

4 -> 

• rH 

O 


s 

4 -> 

• rH 

a 

a 

£ 


a 

a 

o 

O 


”0 

© 

4 -> 

© 

© 


4) 

© 


ft 


a 
a 

o 

4. o 
© 2 
m r 

c s* 


CO 

4-4 

.a 

CO 

a 

o 

U 


T3 8 
© JZ> 

4 -> 4 -> 

O .-» 

© s 

w a 
io 
SJS 

o- 

O J2 


.a 


o 

O 



I 

fl 

is 


■i $ "g jA 
O +i flc 

© a a o 

•S a | ^ 

§ § 3 4 ^ 

| 8 rg g 

S 42 .a ^ 

•3 na g & S 

^ *ii , ^ sj +j 

0 


5^-a 

a “ a 


gag 

" « a 

& 8 S 


a 

a 

j> 

K*^ 

CO 

a 

a 

4) 


43 

O 


O 44 

t4 a 


8 


S| 

• rH CO m\ 

« C(0 S 
o ^a 

(-1 45 44 

a v rt 

O ^ -9 

<U 42 

■5 a a 
a o 


a 

V 

a 

I 

a «a 

44 a 

o 
© 


si 

H « 
11 

« 


a 

ft 

^5 


© 
a h 


a 

u 

> 

© 

CO 

© 

^ ^ -3 

1-8 a 

i CO ® H 

■S S 3 &- 

-lls 


>5 

3 

a 


© 


4l Hj iP 




-4 S «44 

© D. <5 cs 


© 

© 

CO 

co 

© 

a 

a 

© 

H 


-o 2 
a 3 
a ^ 

a u 
1-8 
.5 a 

a 2 

4=) fa 
© w 

4-4 © 

va a 

O o 


« i c 
o a a 

2 s 

h a s 

• H 

. «8 
■g 53 

i «2 T3 
is a 
_? a 
a ^ « 

n r! t_4 

© 


© 


gt 



43 ti 2 
© c -a 

S .5 H> 
8 *» 
a 8 03 
9 cx'o 

g y © 

•M 8 -g 

a'“ ‘ 


*4 >» • 

o -a >» 


CO w 

a 


2 w a c 

a §>1 | 

•S 8J 


w o - ^ 

gO > .2 p< 

















































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


241 




I 

• »—< 
ft 

a, 


-o 

y 


£ b 

,2 a 

Pd 9 


a 


a 


T3 

y 


£ t? 

a 

Pd S 


y 

-M 

*c 

(S 


CO 
ft 
0) 
■4—> 

o 


co 

a; 

a 

a 

Cl 

y 

43 


a a 

0) I—I 


in 

tn 


d) £>' 


£ * 


tiCjS 

a « a >> 


a 

ft 

a 

to 

(V 

a 


,,, > -«-> 
y ce M 
4-> a s- 
n " in 
> tn 

^ y - 




>» -g 

42 9 
a P 


tn 

y 


o 3 
&■§ 


.a 2 

’55 


y 

ts 

.9 a 

a .2 


y 

-4 

o 

> 


y~r c{ O • »-h cd 

.a o a o 


O 

ft 

>> 

■ft 

M • f—• vO ft 

O CN <3 
fl *4J 00 Cl 


I 

0> 


i 0) 

ft d 




« 43 

a 





d y 

X 





•a a 

a « 

3 fe 

y 

-4 

y 

x2 

(O 

<v 




o *2 

y 

"y 

11 

ft 

cd 



y a 
a <s 


o a -a 


ft 

a 


y '■§ 
y v 


-4 a) 

£ a 

(id ° 


i 

a 


a y 
y y 
x 
y 


o .2 


I a 
1 2 
8 

y a « 

« a 8 

o- 


y 

a 


a 
o 

c> 43 

£* ^ 
ro • *-h — 

y o a 


o a - 


to 

v - tn 
W3 ea 

.9 'y 


.2 43 

y 

a 

a 

a 

a i 

o o 
£ £ 

•g X) 
fl y _: 

2 *j “ 

a ° d 

oi! ? 
y y £ 


a a 

y n y 

.. b‘3 -2 

2 g a ^ 

A 3 M t>> 
f y 

a o 43 d 
fe a 4 J a 

»2§§! 
SI.SI & 


to 

ft 


a 

y 

a 


£ S.2 


i 

• 

o 
• ** 

a 

p 

a g 

a .2 

x! y 
y y 

T3 
y -n 
73 a 
Pd a. 


x 

a 


>> 
h 

a 

tn 
in 

a S 
cd 

g » 

a t- 

a §3 8 

- -5 £ 

o o 


a 

-a 

v 


y 

43 


y 

a 


o 
y 

* 2 I 

<y x4 


a 

a ^ 
8 t 


ft 


^ * 


y 


tn 

a 

o 


— 

y -I 

S|s & 

| a | a 

y oar 


r -) y s y 
w in a -*-> 


(X 

a. 


43 

5 

P 



a ^ a 

•g S s 

J 8 8 

O tn r 


a 

o 

u 


a 


a 


y 
y 

• c3 

._. y 43 

5p y y Oh 


y 

y 


&11 •■§ 


a o 

y 

n*» 

■4 ^3 

s a 

gft 8 


a 

o 

a 


a _ 

o 

« a 

>>.2 

■ Y • ^7 


a y 
> 


§8 
8 w 


a 
o 
y 
y 

-2 a 


CO 


8 8 

•fj y 
<3 43 

.a ^ 

‘y «*x 
y o 

(h 

- ft a 
a y 

I, I § 

i 3 23 •■a 

%< a 

£ 


a 

cfl 

X 

a 

8 

y 

tn 


>> 

a 

a 
• »-< 
I-. 

Oh 


tn (h 

4J 4) 

y 4-> 
y 

a “ 

a 
. x 


43 

y 

a 

y 

a 

o 

Pi 

«*-< 

|j 

.a a 

.3 3 

So % 

.a a 

> o 
* 


a tn 
* 2 
tJ3 




y 


^ o 

x- a 

=« s 

• rx W 

8 ° 
to 2 

•SoP 

a 

a..a 


•2 15 
8 o 

2 -»j 

5a 

8 «« 
o 


>> 

a 

a 


a 2 

a 

tx o 

o 

§ 8 
® S 

o 43 
r -1 y 


X 

tx 

a 
£ 

43 

2 - c 
8 ft 

y 

o 6 

<xx ■*-> 

t:«» 

-2 y 

3 y 

d r2 

a y 


a 


-4 y 
2 43 
.2 +J 

8 

o- ° 

S a 

^ a 

o 

w y 

_. tn -4 

a -4 -4 • 

•- tn *g 

co • f-h a 4^ 
ri to W Th 

I § a § 

»u8 8 


17 

































242 


The Annals of the American Academy 


0) 

4) 


a 

a 

o 

CJ 

J-> 

cj 

a 

CJ 

4J 

£ 


<u 

4) 


a 

a 

o 

CJ 




T3 

4J 

•*•> 

cj 

cj 

S 

£ 

o 

K 


T3 

4> 

■+J 

cS 

a 

• iH 

a 

o 

£ 

£ 

o 

w 


e-4-t 

o 


CO 

• 

CO 

a 

o 

CJ 


4) 

^3 qj 
4) 

■M +-> 
cj • ^ 

« a 

w a 

i ° 

<L u 

4; 4) 

cj ,d 

m ^ 


CO 

4-> 
CO 
• *—« 

CO 

S3 

o 


-e 

CJ 


4> 

cj 


CJ *3 

a 

w a 

i ° 

iu 

CJ 4J 
CJ M 

m +* 
o > 


o 

VI 

■M 
CO 
• »—< 

Vi 

a 

o 

CJ 


a 


cS 


-o 

4) • 

« C 

« 

w a 


i 

a; 

F-t 

i & 

£ ^ 

33 CJ . 

•a us +■> 
| *-0 
= O g 


o 

£ aa 

■' o 

cS 
4J 


O 

CJ 

4) 

a 

O 


2 « 
a « 
a *s 


a'H 

O BJ 

.H k 


2 >> 
a *■* 
a a 

.§ ■§> 
2 o 
r5 4j 
O c/2 


• CO 

a wj-a 
a.a a 

o ns cca 

CJ • ^ ^ 

w W >> 
4J -M 

g fl 

a ^ 
«.-a 


CJ 

a 

• rH 

CJ 

4J 

*H 

Ph 


4J 


1 - 

a 5 

.Ja cj 

2 o 

r2 4J 

cj cfl 


I 4-> W 

4J 4) cS 

4J CJ 

£ a 
a 
a 


o 

CJ 


k» _, 

4-> C 

d "- 1 

^ d k, 

a ° t3 

d tn 

’o «*_ 4) 

tm5 O 3 
fl b H 

a _r a 

>>C a eta 

Hi 


a 9 

o *-> 

-t-> VI 

a ^ d 
> a*-* 
§ JS S 

CJ CJ 

-O 

ks CJ 

•d W 

4, 

CO 

CJ ^2 CJ 

J3 gj3 
4-> cS +-> 


CJ 

> 

3 

o 

CJ 

OJ 


» 






















% 


Party Committee State Convention 


244 


The Annals of the American Academy 


CO 

V 

4-> 

oi 

be 

JU 

3 

Q 


45 

45 


a 

a 

o 

U 


a 

a 

• »-H 

45 

45 

CH 


a 

« .2 
O 43 
d 


<u 

ej 

Q 


45 

> 

d 

o 

U 


cj 

£ 

d 

43 

-a 


T3 

*4 

O fjj 

o T: 

a £ 

a © 
£ w 


© 

3 3 

a ►>> 

' © ^ £ 
^ w d 

i >s.a 

• iH * | 1 

EH © 


a 

45 

CO 

O 

rd 

u 

£ 

o 

a 


a >> 
s © 

•£3 p 

w O 

1-S 

3 a 

£ W 


co ^ 

i >, ?*» 

45 * d 

qQ a 

ro • Qj 
3 A ^ 
O O 45 
M'rt fe 

fc d c2 

PH S.S 


"C 

45 

- 4 -* 

c3 

Ch 

'a 

o 

£ 

o 

a 


__ 4 ) 
^3 B) 

<u 42 

•*-> m-> 

o -a 

45 a 
w a 

i ° 
L v 

& « 
45 rd 

m ■* 
o % 


1 § 

o ■»-> 
*■§ 8 
S a 

45 >j 
rd 45 
•*-> ,d 

45 .„ 

5 d 

B s 

d a 

2 

to a 

45 rd 

rd cj 


45 

rd 


d 

P 

o 

v 


o 

d 

d 

o 

cj 


(H 

ca 

ft 

45 

rd 

H 


a 

o 

=4-1 

4J 

ca 

—< 

ft 

ca 

<y 


a 


50 


ca 

3 

a 

P 

o 


O C3 
P 

c; 

f--i ^ 

cj ^ 

a M 

a> 

c« rd - 
45 +■> T3 

d _, a 
° 

« « 

3 £ 
3.3 

r a 

s a 

a § 
a © 

d <y 
O 4-) 

P ca 


<u 

rd 


r CO 

O <U 
rd 

ca +j 

a ti_, 
45 2T 
CO o 

• <u 
CO 45 


P'S 


P 

<a 

I § 

ft-42 

4) >a 

6 s 

^ d 
*3 Pi 

Ph CJ 

*■3 

.a Sd 


p< 

»S o 

co ° 

" g 
25 *5 

-XJ +j 

id 2 

“ CJ 
d 45 

ca x 

CJ 45 
45 H3 

rd 


3 rd 


£2 ^ 
§ -a 

a d 

CJ 

45 <u 

rd J3 

-M ^ 

1* 
d "O 
3 d 
ca 


4-> 

c3 

o 

’£ 

ca 

45 

<4-1 

O 

cj 

2 

s 

m 

-M 

-p 

co 

>» 

CO 

P 

c3 

<** 


2 d 

a rS 

O CJ 
45 

, <15 
3 r© 

CJ -M 
Hn «\ 

o § 

° a 

>> 2 
4-> 45 

Cr +-> 

d .ti 
ft g 

^ i 

H 8 


45 q 
rd «d 
■ M 45 

g>§ 

.5 45 


O 


CO 

X 

45 


2? CO 

rS d 

0 • f—* 

2 d 

§ a 

H 8 


c 8 

d 

o 

N 

• 

P. 


«4-< 

cj 

3 S 

& 

U -M d 

•d ft.a 

Hut, 

EH co ft 


d 

• r*H 

d 

(- 

O 

«4-t 

3 

O 


o 

T3 

ca 

tr 

o 

3 

u 


d 

'TS 

• f-H 

P 

o 


The state convention consists of the candidates for state office and for the legislature, the state chairman and the hold-over 
senators; it meets on the fourth Tuesday in September and formulates a platform. 










































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


245 


_3 

“ «+H 

s 05 

H w 

x | if 

■*j fa 
fa <! 


P3 o 


fa 

a 


CL, 





to 


fa 

-P> 

03 

■H 

cn 


6 b* 


fa 


4) CJ iri _b 4J 
T3 -t-> ^P rl d 


."fa fa 


co 


a 


cfl (1) 
CO Zj 


| la 
°“ 
a g £ 

g‘a g> 

«3 O fa 

-fa c 13 

H-H «4h 


* 

c b s 

w ^ OJ 

O 03 £ 

• hH «-4 

•fa a a 

H'H O 
0) O 

> pp ... 

s 1 ) J 

§£h 


Cj 


(J 4 *H 

cj cd ^ 
W T3 ft 
C5 

5 O « 

S, 
tg < 
««3 S 3 

H *H 4-> 
r^7 0) <4-4 

Pfa •*-> fa 


t-. 

fe 


>» 

fa 

a 


CO 

cj 

• 

>> 

tn 

0 

c3 

*0 

3 

rH 


3 

• rH 

fH 

-3 

Fh 

4-» 

fa 

• pH 
£ 

H-> 

«4H 

Cj 


Sfa cj 


I 

fa 

0 ) 

> 

. fa 

b 0 

-O fa 

-O ^ 
fa b 


fa 

fa 

W 


fa 

fa 

o 

fa 


fa 

o 


fa 
CL, 

*3 

.a S3 

.SP a 
Js 0 
O '43 


CO 


tn 

>> 

c3 

n3 


in 

o3 

fa 


c-, 

CL, 


fa 


'fa 

fa . 
•P> >! 

« b 

^ fa 

w a 


o 

o 

■*? 

-3 

fa 

fa 

fa 

t-, 

O 

fa 

fa 

o 


in 

fn 

fa 

4-> 

O 

> 


in 

o3 

X> 

O 

©< 

-p> 

in 

cj 

fa 


■4-> I 

* +>£ 

§ § fa 1 5S 


• >-H Q* 


• ■—1 o 
-+-> ZL 

O, 




a 


CL, 


„ o 

in ®< 

on .8 In fa 
>> fa o fa £3 

« -9 > -3 *2 


O 

cn 


43 « 

■h -fa 

an 

«2 >> 

s >> fa 
fa -u d 

-m c a 
3 *E 

8 a 

T-, fa 

2 fa -fa 
fa -fa 
43 PP ~ 


fa 

o 


fa 


tn 


O fa 

4-> 

o 

fa ^ 
fa fa 
•fa -5 

fa ^ 
*-, «+-, 
CL, O 

>> fa^ 
P> U 10 

fa CO 

fa T3 
in © 

fa > 


fa 

O 

• H 

4-> 

fa 

fa 

> 

fa 

o 

fa 


cn 

fa 

bC 

fa 

O 

fa 

fa 

o3 

"fa 

• ^ 

fa 

• ^4 

T3 

3 


-fa 44 
fa 0 

.S'* 3 ® 


* a 


a § 

*-, b 
cl, o 


cn 

fa 


fa E* 

fa fa 
> 
fa 
o 

fa 

jj fa in 
fa -fa fa 
■+-> +-> pfa 
cn fa 

1 

fa -d fa 
.. © fa 
O 

pp fa —fc 

fa -fa d 

^ fa 
fa 

.1 & * 

-d fa fa 
-’fa 

>»tc S£i 

a- 2 

g°o 

y K ‘p 

fa .2 | 

nd fa fa 
■d o ’o 

-fa 0 "3 
cn -3 9 

§ g 8 

■J3 cn 

b-g 

fa 3 

„ a.s 
o*c a 

0 a o 
>> fa 

■M fa 

a 43 

fa 4P 

CL, 

a I 

° ‘a 

*— fa 

s >» 

fa £ 

« ^ 
fa 5 


fa 

fa 

> 

3 


& 

£ fa © 
be 3 > 

O ® S 
fa fa S 

fa o 

fa t-l 

__ fa >sP 

-d p-> 

fa *4-1 Cl 

fa ^ « 

b-o 
^.SL -11 

CO ^ 
_r •» tn *7t 

fa fa 3 fa 
u *C 43 fa 
O O H * 
fa fa -3 o 
fa 

c« tn ^43 cn 
fa d fa a 

d *S -d 43 

^ T3 ^ >> 

^ 13 § fa 

s 

4) *» ., ■ 

-Q -, 

O £ u 

£ £ x\ 

* M ^ 

° -tj 
fa 3 d 

a +p fa 

W M H 

cn <-, fa 
3 Cd -d 
O 33 
• — 0) 33 

d 43 Cl 
« 4-> fa 

> « ° 
g fa fa 
0 -3 
Up 3 

fa 

ti d 3 

3^8 

□ 0 ^ 

§ 

fa o ° 
fa 3 s_ 

§ &a 

§ 11 

(■ 1 • rH 

4-> W -+-> 

s s J 

| 0 a 

H 3 § 
fa w 

0 -3 <u 
ho ^ M 

fa © fa 

s § a 

& a m 

a H g 

o <4-» 2 

0 0+3 

m 

Hi 

O g fa 
fa 0 3 
cn cn tfl 


>> fa 
fa 0 

-3 ® 

M o 
fa 0 
3 Jh 
-d ° 

© «<-i 

t>- cn 

fa 

-3 3 
' T) 

c3 -d 

fa 9 

■£ fa 

r-j W 
§ « 


fa 

3 

t-, ‘3 

fa a 

a ci p 

O HH 
3 


fa **-, • 

-3 O S 

Z 8 .S 

0 a^ 

18 g 

3 fa3 

a H 8 

«*-, d 

in U '" 

fa fa 3 
-*p •— © 

fa J3 p 

£ .2 .ti 

"-O 33 ^ 


fa 

3 

o 


fa 

h 

fa 


(-, 

O 


cn cn 


(-, 

fa 

-3 

a 

<u 

a 

fa 

T3 

3 

fa 

cn 

3 

O 

• *-H 

4-> 

3 

fa 

> 

3 

O 

fa 

fa 

4-> 

C/3 

• 

33 

-3 

3 

fa 

fa 

H> 

fa 

cn 

fa 

-3 


■~ 

33 

fa 

-3 

+-> 

3 

fa 

-3 


cn 

S cn 

fa 8 
3 H -4' 

•d bb o 

a g ca 

o o fa 
3 « 42 

«-3 m 
9 43 

fa 4-> 

d fl 

a o 

i3 fa 


5 a 


fa 


3 

<u 
> 

3 

8 CL 

o3 
H 

cn 


cn 

fa 

cU 

bo 

-S 

33 

on 

fa 

fa 

"fa 

cn 

'd 

3 

fa 

9k 

fa 

bC 

33 

3 


.S 3 

t; g 

fa o M 

© fa fa 
^p fa cn 
O 43 -d 

3 ■*■* §* 
-d >»33 
13 42 03 
-3 d kT 

© jo 
.2 cn d 

o a 
0-3 9 
o V 

• —* pH 

4- > w Cl, 
o fa ^ 

©) -H « 
b> OS ri 

o -S ^ 

W -S 3 

t; 2 p 
V> -4 > 

fa *3 fa 
-3 ° -3 

H J 2 ^ 

CO «*H 
CO w 

a 

5 - fa *0 

O _ 

IB'O” 
3 T3 
fa 
> 


u cn 
fa oj 

t* 

a § 

© cn 

<p c- 

5 fa 

O 44 

3 .9 

fa pp 
-3 w 
■4» 3 

cn o 
cn 

fa -d 
—< © 
pp -d 

o 3 
o *c 
^ a 
o © 

a> *3 
© co 


3 

O 

• ^H 

p 

3 

fa 

> 

3 

O 

fa 


fa 


fa 


3 

O 


fa 

P P 4) 

CL, 3 ^ 
O fa cn 
d > fa 
fa g -3 

o 8 fa 


a 
a 

o 

fa 

I I 

Sh 
-M 

fl 
0> 
o 

0? 

4^ 

Jp v 
cn ^ 

fa 

cn O 


3 

3 

O 

fa 


fa 


fa 


n 


r -1 fa 

H efi 


fa fa 

.3 •'-> 

p2 -p> 
w .2 
^d 'O 

"fa "fa 
3 3 
O O 


fa 

• f“H 

H 

4-> 

CO 

• 1—4 

nd 

Fh 

o 

C 4—4 co co 


p 11 

a 8 1 

T3 fa 0 
3 43 § 
fa pp 0 


© fa 
-I te 

o ’jJ 


3 


«. w 
pp fa fa 
2 pp -3 
fa *p< 
fa fa £ 


t~> t-i 

2 £ 

o ■p 

U t« 
w fa 

a | 

<u .9 

o 

& 3 

•-4' C^J 
02 fa 


O 

-3 

fa 

d3 


tn 

O 

3 

• fH 

33 


fa 

3 

fa 

• rH 

T3 

3 



fa 

* 
























246 


The Annals of the American Academy 


a 

«*-■ o 

A • pH 

O 4-1 
a) 0 

y 
> 
a 
o 
U 


ft 

Q 


a tic 

• pH 

b £ 
*3-2 

H -S | 

* || 
►3 -§ a 


a g 
S o 

3*s 

•jg co 

U _! 

c$ ft 9 
y *xj o 

*9 IS 

It- ,-S 
r*H rH y 


o o 

SO Ci 


a 

ft 


a 

CO ®2 

■5-5 2 

w g *2 

.a §•= s 
- 2 & a 

hr O ft d 

55 a ~o a 


^ s g 

| | g 

»5 £ be 


ft 

o 

I—I 

H 

§ 

W 

> 

fc 

O 

U 

K 

H 

2 

C /2 


to 

y 

+■> 

ft 

bo 

'y 

Q 


03 

W 

£ 

ft 

-ft 


'V 

S = 

• »-< ••H 

§ £ 

§| 
;> W 


£ 2 


o 

*<y 

X! 


-a 

B w ., 
a J3 a 
£ co a 
I >».S 

cS Sh 

a Q 13-1 

«*H 

Fh o 


a 

y 

CO 

O 

-a 

U 

£ 

o 

a 


B >* 

2 a 

«E3 a 
S3 U 

I d 
55 W 


1/3 

8 & 5 

qo a 

ft • £C 

a a ^ 
o o g 
» • n 
m +? o 

4 ; 03 »4-i 


"O 

o 

•*•> 

d 

a 

• H 

B 

O 

55 

£ 

o 

a 


a 


a * 

8.2 


M 

y 

o 


'd £ 


.2 a 

"53 a; 

a £ 

a ca 
4) "ft 

a a 

ffl O 

co **-< 


o 
a< so 


y 

a 

a 

o 

y 


g t 
a a 

-a s, 
-*-> 

^ y 
y -a 

4J +J 

rB «« 
■M O 

o 
a 
y 


to 

bo 

a 


ft a 
o y 

ts a 

a .a 

** 
p a 
- a 

to o 
8 § 
® 8 


a 

a 


y -r! 
• 4J 5 

ft a 

•p 


<a 

U « 

o 9 

4-> 

m d 

<D i—I 

Jj co 

_a • pH 

p 2 tx) 
“ 0 ) 

* p - H —■■< 

'a‘ft 
§ ° 
y co 

. t- 

>s y 

-t-> n 

o ^ 

£X y 

y a 

■5 co 
*0 £ 


rO y 

a « 

y 

na 

d 

3 ‘y 

y a 

^ o 

■s y 
a >> 

4-> 

3 
a 

Lh 

o y 

t*H _£J 

a 

’a‘o 

e 8 ° 
H y 

a 

• C 
a ^ 

CO PH 

a .© 

'co H3 

a 
^2 


«3 


co ft 

■ft a 
.22 y 
53 «j 

8 g 
ra ? 32 

S3 

a 

>s a 
-!j y 

S a 

a g 


y 

S3^ 

■5 bO 
o a 

• *H 

■y £ 
ft O 
8 Q S 

9 o 

a 2 «+-• 

^ k. 

•*-> >> 


a u 

ft y 

f' pC 

a ^ 


y 

a 

• pH 
>4 

a 

ft 


y 


ft 


y 

-a *3 

H a 


a § 

a 

S 

y a3 
y ^ 8 

*> * y 
y y _q 

w ^a *7 

-a -k> 
a thH 
ft o a 


ft . 

•a b 
y 53 
•5 2 
y ft 
y .2 

W a, 


y 

3 2 « 

.-ft-5 2 

a to g< 

d y y ♦ 

ft a ** a 
>d *41 o 

a © -z 

S3.23 S 

ci 4J M fl 

u y ft ft 
m -a) j3 w 


o 

y 

y 


y 

ft 

* i 

•a a 
y ft 
x a 

r-T ° 
Pa y 


y 

y 


a 

a 

•4-> 

y 

.a 

y 

£ 


n3 8 
2 2 
y >a 
y g 

S a 

o 

kl .. 

y Jo 

m *" 
o £ 



ft ! 


H3 


a . 



CO 

c$ 

.a 

y 

c3 

CO 

CO 

• pH 

a 


H 

c$ 

a 

• pH 

c$ 

tH 

a 

















































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


247 


a a 

eg c; 

2 a 2 a 

4 4 . 

*3 * * S 

*~3s 

€ § 8| 

h o) D< 


eg 

a 


to 

>» k! 

eg r> 
*d 
O 

.a 

.a a 

-a w. 

+4 4) 

JLT* 44 


| 'o 
r£ Z 
eg 

a ^ 

•n s 

3 

jr co 

O >» 

eg 

"d 


• 


a 

t-t 

a 


4 

> 

4-4 

+-> 

o 

eg 


22 4 

-d 

4 • 

44 

4 t? 

-d 

J § 
t> a 

’d 

4 a 

4> rt 

« -S 

4 a 

3 a 

ra 

W Cd 

, S 8 


O 

O 


eg 

bo 

a> 

^*2 

•d 

« >» 

O T? CO 

« a a 

^ o .2 

m v 43 


i 

jd 

•d 

<4-1 

o 

S-i 

- 

22 

a 

a 

£ 


4 

4—* 

eg 


4 

4-4 

eg 


co •’■' 


CO -- . 

CO eg 

a 

o .2 >> 

-*-> 4-i r> 

a 

» 

4-4 fl 4 

eg O X 
M y a 


<v u 
a o 

® -d 

a s- 

V a > 

4 -h ? 


a 

a 

o 

4 


CO 23 
CO 4 
4 eg 

i—i 4) 


t- 

O 


a 

£ 

o 


^ a 


>4 

25 ^ 

<d 1 eg 
4 H 4) 

ill 

a 


« Ja 


be 

a 


Sh 

o 


co 

a 

4 


>» 

•— 

eg 


_4 . —< co 4) 4) 
rv 4-> H 't? 4 fcn 4J 
fT eg 9 £ -t-> 4 eg 


A LrJ 4 “^ O 0 ^ 

P< 44 _Q o v 4 -> 


<c«U o > mxn 


” a ■a 
a 2 S 

1! ® c 
-d &c a 
o 

4 eg 4 

£ ~ -a 

Ja 2 

r~3 +f a 

H a 4> 


-2 

a 

^-d 

r-4 4 

a w 

a a 

.2 

4-> CO 

aa 4 

'd 4-i 

-a eg 
eg be 


• 4) 4J 

£> mLj • I—I 

O eg g co 

a 

■° co (j 


4 

a 


4> 

4-> 

O 

> 

a 

o 


eg 


a 

(4 


•— 

4 

4-> 

0) 

-a 


2 i 

j a 

3 i 

b a -2 
a a) 

si" 3 

O «+-i 


0) 

1/1 

a§ 


gw 

a 

co 
cd 


» 

cd 

4 -> 

a 

a? a? 


a g 4> 

So 2 


-a 

4 

a 

W 


4 w 
4 

■a ^ 

^ 4 


co 


to 
4 
u 
Cu 

^ to 


« cop- ^ 

a 4 <4-, .> 

be 22 o 43 


co 


CO 4 

i-s 

8« 


' 4 a 

C d a 

a ^ - 

co a> 

Jh 

4 3 

aq eg 

a 

<44 to 

o 


w tn 
h . 




a^ 


o ^ 

.2 4 

4-> 4-> 

a 2 

4^ 4 

g “ 

O co 
4 4 


4 eg 4 4 
44 bC rt 4 

-2 W pj 

4J 4J ."d 

w -d 

^ 2 s | 

h 5 a 8 


a j2 

| g 

* -§ 

| a 

a 4 

&& 

.Bm 

4-> 

o *d 

to 2 

g ^ 

a .2 

a a 

^ o 

c: -p oj 
h a o 

a 

W « o 
a o 
a, a .5 


■ 

^4 

'S 

'd 


■ 

. a 

>> 4> 


> 
a 
o 

J i 

CQ Sd-S 


a 

a 

o 

4 


CO 




-4-> 




4J 




0^ 


a 1 

•»—* 

CO 


D- 

5 : 

a • 

■g • 

&, 


a 

CO 

4 

a 

• 

cd 

CO 

bo 

3 

CO 

# co 

*K 

VI 

4 

a 

CO 

cd 

a 

• i-H 

a 

• »-* 

a 

• H 

a 




































248 


The Annals of the American Academy 


& 

o 

M 

H 

g 

W 

> 

55 

O 

U 

w 

H 

< 

H 

m 


xn 

y 

4-4 

d 

be 

jy 

13 

Q 


4J 

y 


a 

y 

0 

• pH 

y 

y 

s. 


V 

d 

Q 


a 

o 

a 

y 

> 

a 

o 

O 


«s 

£ 

ci 

t- 

X 

-a 


DO 

y 

y 

a 

3 

y 

d 

> 


X 

y 


P&l 

£ 

O 

W 


S-i 

y 

-Q 

a 

=3 

£ 


y 

Si 

o 

«n 

y 

-Q 

05 

4*4 

d 

Q 


>4 

d 

a 

*H 

Ph 


a 

y 

CO 

O 

-a 

U 

£ 

o 

K 


a >> 

2 1 

«+i =3 

u 
*5 ^ 
J d 

& W 


OT 1 
I 1*4 

s j? s 

qQ a 

• pH 

1 a ^ 

O O « 

c/j • *—» &-H 

l -p n 
y d 

Ph S ^ 


X 

y 

4-> 

C$ 

.a 

a 

o 

£ 

£ 

o 

K 


y te 
X a 

03 • pH 

•g > 

CO 5 
„ O 

0 ) o 

ri ^ 


a 


CO 5*4 

co d 

H ^ 

DC y 

d id 
O 4-> 

o 

«4H 

y O 
y . 

m a 

O c 

3^ 
5 a 

05 d 

u -d 

t? 4-4 

O 

^ Si 

00 3 
g d 

•a- 

3 a 
o a 
a o 

• *h 

s -1 

y 
y 


a 


a .2 


o 

V 

*d 

t- 

a 

CD 

o 

y 


a 

<D 

> 

a 

o 

y 

y 

-a 


3 £ 

CO 

0) n3 


03 

O $H 

ftj_. 

CO 


i| 

§1 

-a « 

£ H 
o 

oo 

4-> 05 

.2 S 

CO > 

a -a 
8 § 
a 


a 

o 


a 
y 
> 

O X) 

y a 


4) 

co 

CD 

u 

a 

<D 

Si 


<V 


d .% 


a 


a 

o 


CO 
Si 

CO 3 XI 

y d d 
pa a oj 

H Sm .X 


<U -73 

X a 

d 


X 

a 

d 


a 


(~i 

o 

co X 


Si 

O 


d 

■i^ 


d 


a 

y 

CO 4-> 


U §4 

y o 
> X 
o d 

X x 
o a 

id 


d 


x a 

S-S 
8 J 
3 « 

d <u 

'w >3 

•set; 

a; be 

— a 

co -d 

CO <n 
£ 8 
be £ 

§ a 

U MS 

i r—( 

O ^ 

3 y 

d 

a 

0 ) 

CO 


4> 


Si 

4J 

-4-1 

d 


• Cl, 

m v 
. m 

» a 

8 -a 

sa J 

o 
y 

4-> 

d 

•m u 

co o 

S ° 

«+1 4J 

8 y 

Cv 

’■d 

• pH 

1 8 
3£ 
a a 
a 

*S 8 

oo 1-3 
+j d 
co si 


u 


as 

a 

o 

o 


a 

o 


a 

8 

0) 


d 

OS 


a 

ra 

a 

a WJ .is 
o y d 
5> ,a 
a y 

y *S 

3 co 

!i 

Z a . 

,a y y 

H a "y 


y 

+■> 

3 

co 


4-> 

y 


2 'a 2 b a 
y a y y o 
a oa :> 
yW 


CO 

•- d t, 

a ^5 a 

• 2 y co 

x -a a 
a Tj o 

^ o- 

a t: 

o ^ 


a 

y 

> 

a 

o 

y 


y 


a 
y 
> 

-4 a 

y d o 
4-> be y 
d y 

"-s - 

y , 

eS « 

H y 


a 

o 

i-> 

a 

y 
> 
a 
o 
y 

y 

3 id 

d ^ 

■S 3 


o 

y 


a 

u a 

y o y c« 
y 8 -a y 

<1 

. co y 

co ni id 

n X £ 

« an 

y d 

y 

X 5 S Mo 
o i2 3 
•a [y 'y 

fl ^ CM 

y 4-i o 

' a " 
o a 
y 


_ d 
o te 

U y 

11 

d i_> 


y 

Si 

y 

-a 

a 

a 

a 

• 

a 

y 

> 

y 


a 

a 

o 

y 


> 

a 


d 

Si 

1-4 

a 

y 

y 

y 

-»-> 

d 


y 


y 

a 


>, y y 


a 

a 

o 

y 

y 


I 


o 

$ « -a ^ 

>j d d 
O X 5>4 +3 

8 e 


y 

Si 

a 


a-g 

d 
y 


OS 

-. a 

y y 


y 


a 

a 

o 

y 

d 


y 

05 


£ 

y a 

>4 w y 

Si i CM 

t g J 

y o y 

X ^3 co 

y 3 3 

a cl, d 

rt w So 3 id 

a a 4 > -g 

.2 -g, y 3 
a o ^ 

> "d *o X 

§33 a 

y « to * . . 

£»■« ^ 8 
a a § S >, 

■ a § a 3* 

_ „ ’C d 

a § a § 

'5 y o 

8 ■S y 
> 
a 
o 


a 

c3 

O 

w 

• p-H 

y 

Si 

y 


a 

o 

• T-* 

4-> 

a 

y 

> 

a 


y 


« .a 


d 


II 

a y 
o fc 

• *-H W 


<y 4-> 
fn .. 

_ o y 

y <« tj 
w y O 

y -a *g 


a ^ 

a) 

K. r l 4 ' 

a J 2 3 i3 ^ 
8 8 w 
>4 ^ g 

g £h. h 

| ya cm 

w ^ ^ 
e8 d O d 


X 
.2 w 
y 

y 3 

fc H 

-d ^ _ 

H oU 


3 13 


a co c« 

« y y 

93 =< >4 


s 3 
dH 0 
■Pa? 
o 3 



Si 

a 

o 

05 

05 


d 

a 

d 

u 

a 

o 


d 

iid 

05 

d 

Si 

-Q 

y 



y 

X 


4 -r a 3 >» y a o 

2 d d g d 

•|S | 2 ’ft y 

y -a y 8 ^ ad 

^.2 ^ y 3 3 y 1 

I-^H O y l Oh 

y -m H d o -S 

d .a co -I x 

y R (j » 


Si 

y 

id 

a 

a 

a 

y 

id 

H 


y 

Si 

o 

*41 

05 


y i-> • ~ u 

ills $-8 


y 

d 

a 

x 


5*4 

d 

X 

CM 

y 

a 

H 

x 

a 

o 

y 

y 

CO 

y 

-a 

•41 

a 

o 

Si 

d 

y 

>» 

X 

y 

Si 

JS 

a 

a 

a 

8 

y 

-s 


y co 'y ^3 sg i^ 

•a d^3 -sC!^ 

> g 3 a y o d 

'"■> y ►>- co >, - 

d 3 3— rt >4 

a >,x X 
a -p « 2 

o o y d 

y a d o 

n ° H u 

■&-d y 


o 

»o 

Si 

O 


• a y X 


a ® 
° § 


^ a +•* 

d y a 

be > y 

/S'* —i 


3 

"y 

X 

y 

a 

o 


o a o « h 

y o 3 'S d 

^ y ^ W 3 


g3 

<D 


y J y a S ^ fl 
X 3 J a s- 3 a 


i ~ a 

X 3» >4 y O 

§ a a id 

o d a y ^ u 

y O a - ” 


y .S d y 

° ^ y o id 


ij a y 
o pd 

> y H 

Sh 

«5 O 


id y £ 

o 3 y 


o 

4-> 
• »-H 

a 

a 

o 

y 


a 


„ at> 

- id ^ 

y 

y d 

a 

P d 
3 y 

y g g 3* £ I 

s u §> 


d y-> m _o y 

bePN i a x 

3 3* g S 5 

y . a ° 2 a 

’•§ g j !» 

zi 73 o -t-> ^ a; 

o y 3 y *g h e5 

5 8 Sj 5 

8 ° s a § 

So X X 2 s 

d § §, a 

233 y 

a d x — - 

•a co i-4 3 *X i 

X a y X ° - 

§ -d 3 y co 

o d 3 x *1 
8 *s ^ a 9 - 


y 

id 

y 

Si 

d 

CM 

a 

o 

• pH 

4P 

a 

y 

> 

a 

o 

y 


a 

a 

o 


a 

o 


o a 

ri y 

a £ 
© d 

-Si O 


o -y _ 

y 8 § 

eS a.| 

id y 
O y si 


d 8 

a y 
o © 

• HH 4 5 

3- 


*» d S, d •‘a 
» y 2 3 

" ^ ^ a a 


3 x '8 

d a v 

be d 


8 


o o 

y y 


d 

X 

d 

> 

y 





























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


249 


fH 

42 


rt i i i 

§ 8 S*g 

-fa 3 42 Pi 

& g> 

Q3 O 

d CT! *s 
»h .2 O 
“5 -fa *ts •—i 

0 ) -s o 3 

44 . 

o # ? ^ 
-fa « 52 

A 4J "O ^2 


fn 

4) 

' fH 

TS 

fa H_> 

42 to 
fn «+h 

^ ca o 

5 42 ^ 

H 21 j D 

+* "fa -O 

53 S <12 £ 

£ j2 3 42 

a^HO 


>» 

fa a 

fa3 § 

ft 42 .2 
42 fa h-> 

fa ’S o 

H i-s 

ri G ^ 

vs • ^ i—• 

d d fa 

S 4P *H 
CP OP 
> 42 fa 
42 fn 02 

02 ft to 


4) 

-P *J 
d fa 

§ a 
‘a 8 

(h 

OP IP 

-fJ -+-> 

OP c3 

Q ■£ 


,i ej T3 
fa 42 


d 

42 

4fa 


42 

o 


fH 

o 


co 

42 

H-> 

fa 

fa 


a 

o 


J 8 

42 4-< . 

CO Oj i 

tO^ 

O ^ fa 

O 42 4) a; 

co F "0 co 


fa 

fa 


ri co co cl 

k T (. . 42 fa 

faT 9 HJ 42 r*> J—I CJ 

PQ +J Oh -fa Oh CO 



fH 

o 

=H-H 

CO 

42 

42 

fa 

• iH 

a 

o 

£ 


1 

> 

ro 

1 

cd 

i 

fa 

OP 

4-» 

o 

‘S 

G 

-*H 

cd 

to 

fa 

OP 

fa 

4-* 

fa 

03 

42 

CO 

03 

«+H 

o 

o 

42 

OP 

4-> 

cd 

42 

fH 

a 

G 




42 

Cw 

42 

42 

r» 

fH 

o 

03 

c\ 

fH 

CO 

CO 

OP 

m 

fa 

fH 

c/3 

P-H 

fH 

O 


o 

42 

O 

•4-J 

4J 


o i 


42 

H—> 

a 


>> 8 
-fa 3 

• rH 

11 3 

8 a 

K 8 


42 

r——< 

42 

d 

tl-C 

o 

f-l 

42 

-fa 

a 

0 

£ 


42 

fa 


-fa 

42 


fa -fa ^ 


CO 

fa 

42 


O 42 

HJ 4-> 

fa 


S* fa 


O -0? fH "w 

8 a-fa i3 

S Its o 

be a -t, 

. - 42 42^,42^042 

fa O -fa -fa o -fa 4fa -fa 

&D42H->H-J&i-iH->dH-> 


.2 8 
fa 

CO fa 
42 ’d 
' tH 


fa 

fn 


CO 

42 

4-2 

o 

> 


42 

H-> 

o 

> 


co 

fa 

d 

o 

co 


o 

20 

©< 


fa 






• • 0,3 





«+H 


• • 





O 


: : ^ 





fa 


• • fa 





o 

• 

4-> 

• ^ 

03 

U 

OP 

• • fa fa 

o 9 

• • c/3 o 

* . • H 




42 

p4 


O 

> 


42 

P* 


fa 

fn 


42 

.a 

-fa 

CO 

I* 

a 

w 

£ 

42 

£ 


42 

CO 

f-l 

42 

d 

£ 

42 


-fa 

f-H 

o 

>* 


£ 

42 




fa 

cd ! 



.a • 



o ; 

u 

fa 

■T—' 

o • 
-fa • 

fa 


fa 

u • 

Q : 


a 

-fa 

-fa 


w 

-fa 

H-> 

fH 

*3 

fH 

o 

fa 

o 

o 

‘-fa 

3 


fc 

O 

O 



































































Party Committee State Convention 


250 


The Annals of the American Academy 


G 

**-• .2 

O ‘43 

4 g 
% > 
Q § 


g >> 

o a 

_ 

j ^ C/3 

u ci 4 
a> 4 G 

4) 4 

&C G > 

o ^ 

t • ^ I---* 

4-> 

4 4 Ui 
> 4) ^ 


c3 


w 


4 


fl 


r—< 

S Q 




t» w 

fM 4J 4 -T! 
^ a) 42 


co 

4> 

+-> 

o3 

fcJD 

"4 

Q 


m 

F c$ 

£ 

o3 

'G 

,G 


"G 

-2 

4) S 

-O fi| 

g 7: 

a3 

2 © 

pSffi 


$H m * 

fl) © 

'd o 

1*2 ^ 
^ ^© G 

| fc.S 
a Q 

• pH «*H 

H © 


G 

41 

CO 

O 

4=1 

o 

£ 

o 

ffl 


a >> 

© G 

£ 3 

K © 
4 O 

I'S 

£ W 


w 

8 j? 53 

qQ a 

• pH 

i—i Lh 

c3 • Qj 
G G 7 1 
O O 4 
co •« 

Cg u-€ 

H O 


^ £,2 


-g 

4 

-t-> 

o3 

G 


O 

£ 

£ 

o 

a 


i 

a 

o 

4 

4> 

H-> 

c3 

4J 0) 
CO <u 

>»*g 

« a 


•r 1 G d hj 
4-> G 
O co S 

*s» a **- 
= - 1 •* 8 
I I tf °-a S 

>» s *g o § & 
PP o- g > S 43 


G d 

a a , 

a 8 

u _ 

aS 


d 

f- 

H-> 

G 

4> 

4 


4 

4 


>j*d 

a I 

g a 

o o 

4 4 


co 

>s 

a 

-G 

o 

co 


^ © 


w 4) ' 

*■3 a 

fl W 

" <1 

-fJ co 

^ 4 2 "a 

§ § § § ^ 
q g aos 


■ 

G 

4 

> 

>» O 

42 4 

■G 

iJ £ • 
4 a § 
^ J3 9 
o O 

w 8 -a 


4 

4 


a 

a 

o 

U 

■4> 

4 

G 

• pH 
8 
£ 


5 § 

^ 'a 

w a 

© 

*H .. 

3 pS 

B t 
o 


05 

• pH 

G 

oj 

> 

»—■< 

co 

G 

G 

4 

Ph 


o3 

G 

> pH 

O 

t -1 

o3 

u 


G 

4 

"G 

• pH 

co 

4 


>> 

t-i 


G 
O 
co 

u 8 g 

8.5 -S 


G 4 


no 


KCSfH.MCO^H 

4 — eo >-i G •'p 4 4 

a • 4 j§ g 4 x •is 

?§«BO 


^ . . . 

• pH I 0> 

w o) S 

<u o o 

Jh ?h 


•+■» *h *pi pp w 

a Ph > co H O 
o 
m 


o 

G 

Q 


CO 


4 

4 

CO 

CO 

4 

G 

G 

4 

H 
















































Digest of Primary Election Laws 


251 



2 a 
a) o 5 i 

3 y jj ^ 

H n 3 


o? a . JL, 

Ui —* M 

d M u 
4) 0) 2 

a * M b 

4> — '' 


to o 
hi ■*■> 

a o 
<u O 

£ .9 

8 >* . = „ 
a’S S 
a S*i s?s 

OH^ §s-s 


t- 

a 

«T! O ^ 
5* h o3 ^ 


■M >J 

w a 
ca 

a -5 
« *o 

I -< 

+> 'rt M 

<u S a 
« a <1 


to 

a 


i 

a 

o 

o 


a <o 

a S 

O o 
o •£ 
a 

PQ > 


© 

o 

C<3 

a 

o 

a 

4> 


> is» 
o -2 

bJO « 

a 


t- ~ 
«2 to 
4> « 

« o 
O ► 


o 

o 


(-1 

o 

a 

u 

4> 


t-i 

O 


>? 

a 


**h a 

o >> 8'g’l 

| a *5 * 


a s 


<D 
to 
„ to 

a 2 * 

a a «J 8 5 

o a a ca a 

Hr c3 >43 4_> 

<-t 4> to O to 


*d 

4> 

4-> 

V 

4) 

'55 


a to 
a ^ 

a § 

.a g 

to a ► 
a -a >* 

H 


-a 

P 


o 

a 

4) 

> 


a 

to 

a 


to 

0) 


a a 

° o 
J3 «fc3 

§ £ 
a^ 

.* a 
a a 

a £ 

"13 

*Eb-e 

~ 8 

4> —■ 

44 C3 

o *o 

«4-l ^ 

8 8 
.3 +J 

II 

11 
o y 

-O ^ 

a * 

03 a 
to <3 

s ° 

44 ^ 

a 44 to 
ca a 

5 *> o 

w o 

(-i a 4> 

£ 3 * 
a 

X! « ’X! 
© 
a 


4) 

a 

Sfl 

o 

41 

+4 

a 


•> a 


a 


8 

cl, 


to 


a 8 

4J ID 

S -§ g 
•2 a * 

w O fl 

5 2 | 
a 4> a 

T3 f-1 C 

•a 68 *3 
T3 „ a 

a g a 
a .a a 

° ^ <u 

2 •% ti 
a u <3 

CO c/3 

-P 

‘S H <3 

a ^ 

.2 4 > a 
w a 
ggo 

8 8’s 

W 4-> -M 

fl cu.2 
o r 2 -9 
•43 CA _ 

a t-t—i a 
2 o a 
> . o 

a *to 
o _2 to 
O n3 4» 

0) 4 fell 
■3 3 a 
5H © 
M x) S 
Jj .53 13 

StS s 


o 

o 

to 


>» 

a 

■d 

a 

o 


a «* 
w.S 


a 

_o 0 

a o 

n3 - 
2 £ 
8 2 

w 8 


to 

0) 

0^ 


-M 

c3 

-4-> 

CO 

. aJ 
>> o> 
r> -m 

^ 4-J 

• 

^ 3 

8 a 
S 8 


• • 

• • 

• • 


a 

• 

« 

• 


• • 

a ! 

’a : 

• 

• 


• -4-> 

* * 

0 . 

f •• 

'5b • 

* 

• pH • 

CO 

a 

W) I 

.S • 


o 

>» 




























































State Convention 


252 


The Annals of the American Academy 



-d 


a 

& 

Ph 


d 

o 


d 

0) 


£ 

% 

a 

C/2 

V 

a, 

a ' 
£ 


c3 

-ft 


d 

o 

’co 


■> 

o 

Ui 


ft 

o 


£ 


W ri 

t .P 
O M 

eS .2 

g ^ 

" -d 

m d 

. TO 


T3 
d 
c8 
to 
4> 

o 

83 

o 
a> 

c3 O 
4J «5 

CO €©- 


d 

a> 

a 

to 

to 

4> 

& 

d 

o 

o 


i^4 

C/2 rj 

•5b w .2 

TJ c; 
d 

tM 2 t*H 
O W 

2 £ « 

I 8a 

|1g 

W5 d ° 

(N S H 
€©• 5 €©• 
« P 

o to 

Sh 
► 4 

4) <y 
*h Cf3 
3 CP 

3 O 


o d ■ 

4> 

to 

.a s 

£3 8 

a -p 

•r 4> 


A d 
o o 


to 

S-4 

<u 

4 


'<p 

S.s 

4> 

d <D 


'd id 

<u £ 

H 4> 
3 -d 
c £ 


-3 c$ 

P w 

a d 

s & 

ftS d 

f 8 8 

w CO 
fl 4)66- 

k. tn 

? 4> d 

o rP 4> 
4-> > v 

^ > 4> 

K 
4> 


O ' o 

4-> d a 
rt M 
d jjd 

<u P d 

.| ■3 «8 
o’ ~o 9> 

4> 


o 4> 

d -d 


to _ 

• — o 




O c n 

*4-H P-4 

f. <D 

O O 

rt g 


o 

d 

CO 

4> 

O 


'd 
<u 
• •—< 
d 
a 1 
a? 
!- 

a> 

d 

o 


CO ft dJ 


to CO 

« ° -5 

p 4> _ 
C5 rj *4—i 

d **-t o 

d m >j 
3 d (h 
£ d3 «3 

P3 53 

a >> a 

W ft d 


_ <y 
& -g 

■S.S 

o 
a 


d g 

a a 

<2 « 

| i 

.P d 


fts 

■d 03 

8 d 

•d o 

^ • ^4 

O 1 p 

4) d 

(-< to 
d 
4> 
ft 

a 


to 


4> 

4> 


a* 

° -d 
4> 4) 
P3 CUD 

4-* I- 
O rd 

<y . 

>> 

U CO 

c3 •' H 
”c3 <si 

tfl 4) 

. • r-i , *4—4 < 

fg t 
^ § 

. 04 <U <u 

o OS 

H §*| 


a § 

8.2 


c3 

H 

O 

o> 

ft 

to 


8 


a 

o 

o 


to 
4) 

• ^ 
J- 

>» 3 
tJ S 
£3 *c 

ft ft 


■ 

d 

0) 

> 

d 

o 

V 

X2 

*d 

41 

d 

W) 


S d 
2 § 
Ph ’43 


d 

o 

• >-H 

-M 

d 

o> 

> 

d 

o 

o 

P5 

d3 

4> 

4-> 

cS 


a 

o 


c« 


u* 

P-4 

o 

o 

-4-» 

+-> 

4) 

o 

4) 

<D 

r h 


0) 

4> 

1—( 

, t 

cS 

c3 

4-» 

*42 

d 

d 

4> 

4) 

T3 

"d 

cn 

*3 

4> 

4) 

Lh 


Ph 

PP 


d 


o 


-4-» 


a 


* 


o 


4-> 


C/2 


• r—« 

d 

t-i 

o 

•d 

U 


o 


d 

o 

• r-H 

d 
4) 4> 

P > 
5^ d 
&P § 


g ^ 0 
^ Q d 
CJ 


o3 

rs 

"E 

E 























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


253 


b a 

a O 

a « 

"5 *a 

n. • *—« 
^ *-< 
0) O 


CD ** 
TO S •<-> 

<D -m .X 

a 

<u 

a 


cn 


GO 


a 

2 T3 

3 ^ 



03 

>> 

a 

>> 

a 

03 

a 

a? 

4-4 

CD 

03 

CO 


43 

CD 

o 

CO 

« 

F 3 

43 

43 

a 

a 

a 

t4 

• p—< 

4-> 

• H 

a 43 

- -a 

>> 4-> 

fe 


o 


o 


t» 


a 


.a 2 
a ^ 

O >i 

fl -Q 




fl 

o 


C5 

43 

> 

a 

o 

o 




co 

u 

0 ) 

cd 

m 

o 


03 

(h 

o 

4-4 

cd 

ja 

"cd 

’a 


a 

o 

a 

03 

co 
CD 
c-i 

&0 « 

§ * 

W +J »H 

U £ 0-< 


CO 

t4 

O 

4-4 

a 

a 

CD 

03 


a 

CD 
T3 

'§ ^ 


03 

t-t 


CD 

JD 

TS 


4-3 

3 


a 


S3 

4) 

-a 

Gfl 

a; 





CW 

o 


CD 

43 


<D CD 

2 -a 

<v a <v 

^ *-3 ^ 


Sh 

O 

■M 

c3 


£ a -s „ 

°-S a * 

-2 » & Cfl 
c3 a ±3 

00 PM <1 p o 


(4 

o 

a 

(4 

<D 

> 

O 


a 

o 

• 

4-4 

a 

<v 

> 

a 

o 

CD 

£ 

"O 

<D 

4-4 

a 

o 

TJ 

<3 


Jn £3 


43 


a 


"5 ^ 

o ^ 

T3 «Q 

a o> 

a 

to § 

■§* 

•r-» 03 

CD 2 

a^ 

4 ) -a 

f4 XJ 

2" ° 
^ c3 
C/2 O 


o3 • 

a ^ 

•c * 

a.'S 

"3 

£3 

a a 

S * 

O >4 
> O 


«5 

GO 


03 

a 

o 

03 

a 

P£ 


i 


I 

a 


.2 £ a 
13 2 •£ 
'S 8 fj 

^ a a 

8 g» r 9 


a 

a 

£3 -2 

J i> 

T3 Q 
a 


a 

is 

o 
















State Convention 


254 


The Annals of the American Academy 


d 

PQ 

d 

o 

CO 

0) 

a 

d 

£ 


bO 

d 


d 

y 


U ( 

£ 

jfa 

>3 

d 

a 

CO 

<U> 

a 

d 

£ 


co 

V 

4; 

Pfa 

be 

d 


Pfa 


a 

o 

C$ 

s 


CO • • ~ 

1 CO CO 

^ J) 
Cj 4) O 

y y eft 


4; 

d 

o 


y 
bfi 

d d 
«*-■ •- -M 

o £ « 

>^0 .a •> 

^3 s 


O u 
o 


d 

d 

4) 

CO 


d 

d >> rf s 

cr m 

y C4 

y 'l p 

pH 


y 

d 

d 

o 

4J 


-d 

d 2 d 

d °. o 

o c —1 a 

a § 'S 

O 0 d 

0 >» . 
-4-J fa 4 J 
O ,d CO 

"C d .fa 
■p m d 

ad -a **-< 

e+1 ’> 

O > £ 

ft) S O 
be O >3 
d cfl d 

.a,? a 


O d .2 

jj • 


(O 

^ T- 

g >3 d 
• ?■* 

^ s 

© d Sh 
CO ft 


bo 


4J 


S -d E 

• rH 1 1 

* *2 
O £ to¬ 
ft^ CO 

O p ^ 
**->S 

to O ^ fa 

y o © 

5 *© >3_ 
O €©• -fa ® 
co 2 2 

co ss d o 

d 0 O _h" 
y ft) O €©■ 

4) 

P^l 


Si 
4) 
d 

o 

• f-h 

W 
CO 

• *■< 

a 

-3 a 


S «j 
0 0) 


a w 
.2 
S .tJ 

4) 

fa t» 
O co 
d 
d *y 
2 • 
a ^ 


CO 

CO 

O 

1 


CJ 
d 
d 
o 

y co 

„ o3 
y d 
> O 

r~1 • •—* 

-+-> CO 


CO 

o f n 

^ d 

• • • 

& s 

;-oj 


€©■ 


4) 

ft) 

Ph 


ft) 

a) 

•+j 

co 

d 

u 


id 

CO 

d 

* ^ 
2 O 
o ^ 

a ° 

d **- 

ft) 

d o 

« 8 


pfa 


ft, ft- 

.Sr d 

-d 2 

g j 
i *3 

O d 
■* J d 
u o 
y y 

id 

4-> „ 

0 a 

© d 

o£ 

*0 

w 

<*- 8 
0 $0 
8 0 
p&i 


1 Si 

d o 

y 

be >, 

o 


co 

2 X3 
^1 4) 


d 

d 

o 

o 


V •- 

d3 "2 ® 

u 4> i-> 

- t-> c3 
y 


CO 


y 

_ ?H *1 j 

beJ! ° 
~§ y -g 

8 8^ 

• «—< r—« 

o^2 
ft y S 


ffl 

o 

-4-> 

a 

•»—» 

-M 

CO 

• m 

TJ 

d 

d 

CO 

Si 

y 

y 

m 

o 

y 

+j 

d 

C/2 


2 S. 

d ^ 
a y 

s- m 
o o 

+> V 

u S3 

•r d 

J3 ^ 

CO 

• ^ 
^ o 
o 

• #\ • 

o 

o €©■ 

^ 2 

« 2 

co y 
u id 
y d3 

y o 


y 


y y 
v y 

>3d 

d o 
u y 

«3— W 

y y 

-O -Q 

O >3 
i-> d 

co d 
y W 

y co 

«*i y 

-1 M 

d d 
d ft) 

o ex 

•d >4 
y 


•sf-a 


y 


"fa y 

2 © 
63 "d 
® § 


"d 

x) 


d 
, o 
< *43 


&Z 

d 

.• 

>3 y • 
+* a tj 
fa y y 
d be 
ft y 
^ y ® 

^3 ^ £fa 
id yj d 


Si 

d 

a 

>3 

-o 

x 

y 

a 

d 

Si 

Pfa 


>3 

-Q 

d 

y 

CO 

o 

d3 

PJ 

to 

y 

i-> 

d 

X 

• H 

X 

d 

d 

u 


>3 

d 

y 

CO 

O 

id 

U 

to 

y 

y 

50 

O 


CO 

d 

CO 

d 

d 

M 


d 

d 

d 

• »H 

CO 

‘3 

5 























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


255 


to 

V 

a 

a 

a 


4 

-<-> 
• H 
•— 

> 


03 

4 


p 

4 

Ph 


X! 

4) 

P 

• (H 

' 3 

cr 

4 

P 

4 

fl 

O 

£ 


<u 

35 


35 

a 

a 

4 

© 

©< 

€©■ 

#» 

to 

Ph 

o 

V 

m 

o 

4 


a a 


in a 


4 _r -p 
in O ‘2 

4 r-H a 

35 «©- 2 

^ fi «*:< 

4 o 
-p> 35 
CD -P 03 

4 - a 

y « 3 
X » c£ 
a; 4 

_ p a 

*c © §3 
|o fl 

w o 4 
GO W> 

o 

^CGpJ- 
2 •-' g 03 

73 G^"- 1 © 

• I—( ■ ' 

03 ' 


G3 ^ 4 

H ^ '2 4j 
e3 o3 £ sa 

t) « ft D 


03 ^ 
4 


a Jj 

a o> 

a S3 

• a a 
2 .2 
a g 

a 4) 
S3 > 

0 O 

o 

W) ►» 

C *j 

p g 

• ’-N 3 

£ o 

£ u 


1 

4 h 

c; 

jp 

a-> 

03 

4 -> 

4 ) 

c 3 

35 

+J 


03 

0 > 

4-4 

a 

O 

a 

JV 

r. 

13 

>> 

u 

0 ) 

a 

pH 

ct 

«*—< 
Ph 

Gh 

O 

4 -> 

t- 

Ph 

0 ) 


4 -> 

*-G 

« 4 -l 

-M 

G 


to 

to 

s 

44 


co 

fl 

.2 

p 

0 

4) 

> 

a 

o 

4 


I 

a 

4> 

> 

a 

o 

4 

4) 

P 

03 


>> 

■a o 

p! p 

o 2 

u £ 

So 

• ,2 

>> 4) 

5 ^ 

« P 
O 
4> 


03 bO 


a 

o 


a a p ^ 2 
—' 1 *■“ CD 4> 


a 

32 

a 

o 

a 

4) 


p 

is 

4J 

32 

03 

a 

to 

0) 

a 

c3 

£ 


>> o 

-M p 

a 
2 
o 

4) 


>> 

a 

a 


i 

03 

4> 

4) . 

© a 

n ° 
CD •>-< 


w O 
>;© 


w «5 

p ®* 

*2 S 3 

co % 
4 ° 
•£ «p 

03 

; H . co 

-a 4i 

a © 

r «$SB 

U o 


4) 

CO Q. 
4) ^ 

© a 

«H-H 

_, «4-H 

£ 2 

53 s 

j-g 

a Cl 


c3 

co 


Ph 

c$ 

tc 

G 




.O 

€©■ 

03 

4> C“ 

o -s 

> a 


>>03 

S3 




4> O 
32 O 


<U 

4» 

SB 

o 

a 

a 

t-< 

o 

«4-l 

o 

©) 


4> 

a 

o 

a 

a 

35 


a * 

’7* 4> 
t- y 

*2 ® 

03 ° 

2 « 
o +3 
> 5 

.» 

O >> 


4> 

O 

m 

o 

tH 

o 


a 

a 

o 

4> 

4> 

a 

o 


1 v ■ >» 

33 a § :tJ 

a 4 i a o 

• fe w 

C4 ti 

° (H 3 

to >R ^ 
— S o 

G fcX} O 
O T3 O O 

°.= s.s 

2"S S.’S 

O fl * 


CO 

09 

CD 

fee 


“■J •■3 

€©• a 

« Ph 


42 W) a . 
be *-> o b 
ii 43 u 3 


>> 

H 

a 

CO 

rt 

4J 

(h 


a 

.2 

a 

4> 

> 

a 

o 

4) 

>> 

32 

03 

4> 

a 

a 

Lh 

Ph 


a 

.2 

a 

4> 

> 

a 

o 

4> 

>> 

32 

03 

4> 

+-> 

a 

o 

03 

< 


a 

4) 

> 

a 

o 

4) 

4) 

+-> 

a 


>> 

32 

03 

4) 

4-> 

a, . 

-2 0 
12 ° 
< *£5 


03 

4) 


a 

Ch 


Ch 

o 


a 

'a 


a 

4J 
> 
a 
o 
o 

>> 

■*-> 

>» g 

4 -> a 

a o 
a o 
o >> 

U J2 


>> 

32 

03 

4> 

a 

a 

t-i 

«*-i . 

a 2 

^ 4-> 

£ S 

IS 

(CD O 
4) 

5 « 

S s 

in co 


CO 

'a 

CJ 

(CD 

CD 


CM 

o 


u ■*■> a 


a 

4) 

a 

4> w _ 

^Su 

a •£ 

M M 

►, o a u 
o^o -2 


to 

a> 

a 

SB 

o 

4> 


CO 

Lh 

O 

•g 

4> 


i~ 

O 

a 

t* 

V 


u « 
o —. 
a 

a ■- 
c a 

-I 

+-> 03 
^ $ 
< P 


co 

s* „ 
4> 53 


CO 

O 

o 

'a 

’a 

• H 

-M 

a 

CD 

03 

• >-* 
co 
4> 
H 

P^ 


CO 

*1 

4) 

4> 

© 

O 

41 

-M 

a 

-M 

C/2 


£.2 

4-> 

O ^ 

.s s 


to 


S 2 ^ ^ 

« a *J 3 A Ph 

SB a a aj -m 

o 4 > <v tc a 

^ M 03 §, a 

m ?? ,2 .2 

. 2 4> +J 

oq P P-. Q 


o 4> a 

g 

2 a m 
cd 'T o» 


4> 

a 

cj 

S 



a 

a 

O 

CO 

bo 

j 3 

Ph 

o 






o 

• 

4 -> 

a 

‘a 

cm 

>> 





o 

a 

41 

K„ 

a 

.2 

ti 

4 

> 

Pi 

a 





• 4- 1 

r* 

a 

o 

’•Jp 

a 

bo 

(CD 

4 


co 

44 



co 

V 

V 

4 

> 

4 

35 

35 

-M> 


44 

V . 

to 


03 

a 

-M 

a 

bC 

»■ *H 

a 

o 

4 

+-> 

co 

Cm 

O 

o 3 

4-4 

c 3 

i : 

a 

a 

a 

jj 

'v 

a 

a 

o 

4 

-a 

4 

JD 

>> 

03 

o 

4-4 

to 

O 

c 3 

to 

bo 

• rH 

35 

Ph 

Ctf 

Q 

• ^H 

-M 

H 

4 

CO 

32 

^3 

to 

c$ 

4 

• »-H 


a 

o 

CO 

4> 

a 

a 

























State Convention 


256 


The Annals of the American Academy 


g 

PP 

a 

o 

S 

a 


bo 

a 


£ 


CO 

s 

4) 

til 

b£ 

a 

G 3 

|SJ 


33 

4 


a 

V 

a 

co 

4 

a 

g 

a 


be 

c 


4 

s- 

03 


co 

4 co 
4 

03 n) 

-a -St 

• +-> 

Ti 
8 | 
a 
33 

4 Jj* 

bo t! 

b eS 

J «• 

o >> 
P2 

co 33 

4) 4> 

* 

Ph <a 


I 

a 

o 

o 


4 

co 

G 

4 

4 

G3 


33 

4 


G 

4 

a 

4) 

4 


Si *J 
4 *S 

ph a 


3 

O 

U 



41 


G Gf so 

«sga 
» £.§ 
e* « w 

ofi 

agS § 

g r-H ^ 03 


33 

G 

• ri 

33 

G 


Si 

O 

«4-< 

H-> 

co a 

4 ) 4 ) 
33 

eg *53 

33 4) 

• p* 

G 4) 
4 4 

• rH 

t. >*■ 

•21 

oj 

33 

£ a 

i3 4> 

•a -3 

a *s 

Si 4> 
4 ti 

Pm Pm 


^ I 

co co 

Pm • pH 

4> 33 

4 


sa 


o ° 
<* 

4 qj 
co G 

.i •'“* 

O ir! 

»o ^ 

€©• 3 


G 


G 

_ 4> 

a a 


G 

4 

CO 

m 


CO 

i 

& 

G 

O 

4 


• i o 32 

£ iB S S 

co O ■ 6 ©- 41 

H g 

- «* 8 be 

^«o!S ^ 

a «j a .a 

O 4 G 

© 5 .2 

AT 52 ti 33 to 
® O G 4 4 

..tJ G 3 

I- §H 

3§g .‘s 

:§ £ 2 ij g 

£*P3 g g.E 


G 

G 

O 

o 


a 

o 

C-M 

4-> 

oj 

s 


G 

O 

• H 
•*-> 
G 
4> 
> 
G 
O 
a 

G3 

33 

4> 

a 

G 

(i 

Pm 


i 

G 

4> 

> 

G 

O 

o 


03 


33 

4> 

-t-> 

G 

Jafi 

3 

a 

o 

Si 

Ph ■ 


G 

0 


>» 

J2 

G 

4 

CO 

O 

r-G 

u 

oo 

4 

4-> 

<3 

33 

'B 

G 

G 

u 


I 

4 G 
4) O 


a 

a 


G 

G 

0-2 
« -s 

• pH _ 

O 

G -H 

I S.1 : g 

4 G 4-> 

a, &0 G 72 

.5 4 4 5» 
e3 IS > £ 

H-j JG Si 

co Q 


c« 

PH 

o 

a 

% 

"3 


co 

Si 

o 

M-J 

O 

^4 

^4 

!a 

’P3 

G 

4 

33 


Si 

PH 


I 

G 

O 

U 

G 

O 

• pH 

4-> 

a3 


OQ 

• 

U.S 

4 H-> 

3 s 

Q > 


G3 

G 

4 

os 

O 

,G 

O 

co 

c3 

a 

m 

o 


I CO -2 

G q G 

O G 
^ .2 
G ’•*-» 
o 4 c$ 

3 > a 

g ^ 

o o 


pp 



Gh 


• H 

pH 

co 


u 

co 

r-H 


o 

CO 


CO 

CO 


CO 

H 


• pH 

i 




<» CJ 

4 ^ 


co 

^ u 

G S S 
be G -g 

«.2 3 

13 P3 4 


4 

4 


a 

a 

o 

4 


G 

G 

G 

H*H 

G 

O 


G 

co 

G 

s- 

-Q 

4 


























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


257 


u 

4) 

"43 


ed 


ca 

a 


T3 

0) 


a § 

o> o 

Ch -43 


tfl 

~ 


I 

3 


I 

V 

$ c/2 

ti. «4-< 
2 O 

o 

43 4) 

o 

I ft • H 
® | 
9\ 

•» P< 

O 

2 c 

Cd a; 

43 o 

w §3 

“ a 
• 22 
p a 


2 8 

rf) y 

a; o 

■5 

© .a 

o" £ 
® .2 
I—I "T3 
€©- 

H-T O 

Jh © 

§s 
w . 

43 £ 

a g 

43 Ud 
t-> ad 

ex o 


3%d 

.3 

C/J * 

Ch * 

0) *H 

a 8 


© 

rj< 

€©■ 


_•> Xi o 
§.£■ 
si s| 


S3 

2 

O 

w 

43 

aa 


u 

43 

43 


•> o 

■> w • •> k; 

^ © g 
L>w o 

a «■ 4J 
a 


O s-< 
43 O 
+-> 

.%T 83 

G 

c- a; 
€©■ co 


u 

o 

a 

£ 

o 


o 

-M 
• ^ 

"O 

cd 

CX 

CO 

43 

43 


>> 

a 

CO 

cd 

43 

«h 


CO 

s- 

43 

43 

Sfl 

o 

43 

-M 

ed 

-M 

CO 


o 

O 

rH 

€£- 


U 

o 

a 

u 

43 

> 

o 

O 


r2 o 

43 rH 

a <& 

2 

8 

o 

• * 

o a 

MS rt 
<=©■ ^3 
„ <« 

2 


43 

S-H 

ex 

43 




43 •« +J 


cd 


43 


43 


a ‘Jg 

$ | 

aj * 


> 

fH sh 
43 43 

cx'-c 

•"GO 

»« w a 
«©■ w 

h ®( H H 

43 €©■ €©• ©3- 


a 

o ©* 

© „ 
«5 Sh 
€©• O 


£S 


_ „ 

o J) ® is 

> 43 

>s'43 43 

| 2 g "g 

O §3 ^ 
43 co 43 ff 


<D «4-H I 

•*s « 

© !§ "a 

^ 'o “ 

* “ 
0> * fl 

C 4-3 2 

*g g * 
16$ 

S o .2 


• •' i i r> 

*o sh a 2 

i©- G g 

co o .» 

*h "q, >» 43 

o 57 ^ —■ 
■2 o 
a x 


§-§ s 

§J3 


cd a3 

43 w w 
CO „ __ Q. «-> 

MS -C h 

^ 3 >> 

5 S a 

W 43 43 «©■ 3 


-56 


a 
o 

O Q O 

<S> 43 

i© - r^S n 
+-> f- 

C Q 


O 

n w 

rrt 

^ a 

e 5 




CO H ^>.2 oS 
43 O 43 H 22 
43 43 > S CO 


43 

+-> 

a 



CO 

S-. 

O 

4-> 

43 

_43 

T3 

’eS 


a 

43 

-T3 

4> 

r-H 

Ph 


» 



p 

• H 

aa 

CO 

CX 

a 

ed 

w 

43 


>» 


43 


co 


43 




43 


55 


o 

JH 

43 

Jz; 


a 

2 

'o 

- 

cd 

u 


f-c 

o 


18 



























State Convention 


258 


The Annals of the American Academy 


03 

PQ 

a 

o 

n 

4 

B 

g 

55 


be 

d 


X 

4 

4 -> 

4-> 

'§ 

Fh 

0 > 

a 

w 

CO 

<D 

a 

o3 

a 


be 

G 


X 

4 


a 

4 

Ph 


rd >> 
° O fl 


*2 Id 
d 

-t-> G 

o3 

co 

0 ) 

4-1 

e3 


G 


0 ) 

a 

c3 

G 

G 

4 


4) 

X) 

° a 

♦'Sti 

4 . H 
ri O ^ 

G >> co 

^ 0 d 83 


G 

O 


3 g a a 


CO 

4 

41 

£ 

bC 

G 


Ph 


m 

O eg 

41 "g hP 

+-> co 

G __ «+4 

^ § ° 
X G "O 
G G g 
G G »H 

G £ CT 1 
4 rG 4) 

a 


CO 

4 

4) 

m 


4-> 

4 


3 £ 


c 


t-. 

o 


CO o 

co O , 

G r-< ' 
o .. 
a 


co 


CO 


O 

Ph 


_ o 


t4 *4 

o o 


§S 
e a 

4 b 
o cd 


0 > 

4-i 

cd 

-M 

CO 

c; 


2 


XI 

o tf O 

cd *rt 


cd 


CO 


CO +- 

fe 

O 3 
1 8 . 
co £ €©■ 
pH 


• ST O 
41 • G 

• i-4 73 

§ s 

a a 

o 

t4 a 

o H 
Ph 


a .2 


G G 

g a 


4) 

i- 

G 


a 

o 

G 

—4 m 
" nj 

% s 

cd « 4 -i 
£ ~ 


>> 

tn 

G 

CO 

G 

41 

s- 


G 

G 

O 

4 

u> 

o 


*5 *0 G 
2 ei 3 
«« o 
o o 

>> 5 x 

S?jS G 
^G ^3 G 

'G 4 
co 4) X 

° § co 
*«* q 4 J o> 

0 £ # fi 

s?-; 1 
£ 

18 §■£ 
Oq: 


I w 

CO • < 

g *d 


g o s 

a «©■ 

4) G 

35 G 

±5 -• -d 


S 4 «4-l 

o o 


a 

Fh 

o 

U-t 

«♦-> 

cd 

s 


CO 

0 ) 


CO 
Ph 

_ 0) 

11 

g a 

cd 

o * 
co 

>> v 

X o 

4> 

a 4 

eg X 

Fh ^ 

Ph to 


co I 

ft 0 
4 41 

_Q O 

a 13 

4 G 

a g 

#» Cj 
>> > 
-d *3 

a g 

41 <y 

® X 


CO 

G 




4 


G 

43 -H 
G 

4> **- 

bC O 


g >* P 
-d -m h 

a § 

a ° 

x © ... 
G 0 ^ 
G .5 

^ = 
co X o 
4> ^ 4> 
4 ; X 

x *8 « 

a la 

a a G 
o a ^ 
« a g 
_ .2 * 

^g g G 
S d3 4> 
+J u o 


>jX 
G 4) 

X rd 
CO co 
4> GU 
G G2 

H g 

G ^ 
O o 

O G 
4J ►- 
co 

s-i 

G G 

o a 

• H 

CO Ph 

I £" 

X 41 


4) 

o ^ 

O CO 

o g 

» H 
d g> 

G . G 
dl ^ 
•+J s 


*4 O 

4 c2 

4-> _ 

G G 

—' o 


a 


G 


O » 
G G 


G2 

G 

4 

co 

O 

GG 

O 

CO 

4 

4-> 

G 

X 

• ^H 

X 

G 

G 

u 


I 

G 

O 

4 


• a 

«> G 
o 0 

45 * 1-4 

4-> 4-> 

°s 

G 

® o 

G ^ 

'J3 co 
G ^ « 
4 X G 

rs |.2 

CO 4 4-> 

g *4 g 

PhQ > 


co 

*4 

o 

4-> 

4 

J) 

4 

r—i 

G 

• •—< 
H-» 

G 

4 

X 

• 4 H 

CO 

4 

(4 

Ph 


P2 

G 

4 

co 

O 

rG 

U 

CO 

»4 

s 

o 


O 

as 

G 

Q 


IH 

o 


o 

• 4M 

A 

o 


G 

a 

o 

JXL 

P3 

o 


G 

& 

4 


























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


259 


03 

U 

O 

-t-> 

03 

JD 

13 

"d 

• M 

a 

03 

*d 

• H 

03 

03 

tH 

PH 


a 

a 

> 

p—* 

>> 

on 

a 

d 

03 

f^ 


d 

d 

• H 

'o 

S-< 

C3 


3 

o 

cfi 


T3 

03 


a 

«- 

03 

Ph 



w 
03 

+3 

d 

d 

03 
03 
03 

d'gfi « 

03 03 O M 

*S §>£ £ 

£ § d £ 

Ph U C/2 Ph 


d 


d 

a 

o 


03 

o 

Q 


o d 

H | 

Q.S 

n «8 


S-h 

03 

d3 

+■> 

O 

03 _. 

03 -d 

'C « 

d d 

"03 “3 

3" 4-> 03 

rj d *■< 

d cj 5j 

o.S^fl 

is « ° 


o 

02 


03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

d 

d 

03 

H 


GO 

n3 

d 

d 

03 

03 


a 

a 

o 

03 

03 

+3 

3 

03 

03 

* 

03 

03 

,3 


d 

d 

a 

.3 

ci 

rd 

03 

d 

03 

+-> 

03 

JJ3 

13 


03 

d 

o 

• i—i 
+-> 
d 
d 


o 

d 

03 

03 

03 

d 

3 

O 

d 

d 

d 

d 

o 

• H 

d 

03 

> 

d 

o 

03 


03 


d —. 

Ph 3 

2 Jj’o 

CS -} 

gH" 

H 








































260 


The x4nnals of the American Academy 


& 

o 

M 

H 

> 

£ 

O 

U 

H 

H 

H 

m 


H-> 

jd 

d 

ft 

d 

o 

03 

43 

a 

d 


bD 

.a 


03 

43 

<D 

ft 

t C 

d 


a 

(H 

.a 

4-> 

d 

s 


>> 

-ft 

a 

43 

03 

o 

-a 

U 

03 

43 

H-> 

d 

• H 

-a 

a 

a 

V 


>» 

-ft 

d 

a> 

03 

o 

-d 

U 

03 

43 

4> 

Sfl 

o 


a> 

43 


a 

a 

o 

o 

43 

4-4 

d 


-ft 

T3 

43 

a 

a 

ft 


H 

d 

o 

03 U 

© a 
■a a 
a 

« &, 

—h d 

d j/3 _ 

• *-H ^ CO 

-+-> e+H 
d O d 
« 03 X 

"d 43 ft 
•w M & 
4) -a <3 
*- d 
ft *“5 


d 

• rH 

d 

to 

ft 




03 

d 

o 

43 

03 


T3 

43 


F-l 

43 

ft 


* *» 
03 03 

43 43 
43 a 

*0 £ 

o o 

43 4-3 

►.2 


>> 

(h 

d 

03 

d 

43 

!~ 


*43 ^ 43 

-S.2 3 


.2 "5 

bD 

03 -Q 
d 

”0 
d 

d © -d 


d 

ft 

o 

4 -> 

d 


d 

ft 


>> 85 

4-3 

§ - . 

2 o o 

r 9 H S3 

U €©- €©- 


1 

d 

43 

> 

d 

o 

43 

43 

4-3 

d 


>» 

-ft 

d> 

43 

-M 

ft . 
© a 
-d o 
< *3 


1 

d 

o 

O 

13 

2 d 

o .2 

•44 4-3 

13 ^ 


c$ 

• r—( 

4-> 

d 

43 

dJ 


5 .2 

03 4-> 

be d 


*03 43 43 

ft Q 


bo 

d 


o 











































Optional Primary 


262 


The Annals of the American Academy 


73 

y 

4-4 

a 

a 


o 

£ 

<D 

<3 

t» 

CJ 

4-> 

d 

73 

• H 

73 

o 

& 

U 

*d 

y 


(-4 

o 

>44 

to 

y 

y 

sa 

o 


to 

d 

o 


0) 

PH 


73 

73 

y 

y 


.G 


G 

cr 

cr 

y 

y 


Sh 

y 

y 

d 

d 

0 

0 

£ 

£ 


>> d 

a „ 

"d o 
-Q 

*r w) 

y a 

o • I—I 

.G .G 

O ^ 

* a 

2 o 

d <w 
o >i 

£ a 


O y d 

d 3 B 
.ti ‘t- 
4-> d q> 

2 9 <u 

a §3 

O <y 

3 bo 
d t-i y 
73 d 

~0 ^ CO 

d y ^ 

-d «5 
+-> 73 


8 


>> 

*h 

O 

h-> 

c$ 

"O 

a 

c3 


CO 

£ w o 

nj 81 

loll 

d +j . ft 

° o ^’o 

££ «*3 
3 .2 o3 
ccQU^ 


*-< 

o 

4-> 

d 

d 

y 

to 


y 


d 


to 

y 

4-> 

d 


"G 

y 


to 

y 

a 


to 

y 

y 


>> IT 

d y 
d y _ 
m O 

o «a 

to O 


to 

y 


to 

y 

y 

m 

o 


y y o o S 
^ ® aTS ® 


CO 

‘So 
y 

d rn 
go 

^ s g 

y 2 

§3 a sb 3 

H 5 <X> "O C$ 

M W L_J *-< w W L Ml • P-H • f-H T"? ^ 

PU^h®QUH^U Uori 


o o .e 


>j-d .d 

^ J rr r \ 


a 


f- d 

CO g _ 

.-H o O 


2 yd 


d *3 


d 

y 

-G 


d ., to 
y 4 ; 

•« > 4-> 

to . L e 3 

U 4-> «n 

y y Sr 
y y d; 

® ^ -s 

U 

^ O 
09 


’ *4-1 

8 © 

O fc. 

S.S 

O y 

-l-> 4-> 

d 

G-S 


d 

y 

> 

d 

o 

0 


d 

y 

y 

+-> 

d 

d 


CO to 

• ■-i 4 ) 

4-> 

>> d 

t? 60 

d y 

a ^ 

•a ^ 

a ■+-> 

y 

d « 
y 

* 4-1 

hH O 
H-> 

® 2 
y y 
ea -d 


o d 
•rt o 
d '-*2 

d q< 

3 o 

y 

y 


a 


d 
d 

o 8 
y „ 

■fi ^ 

d M 
y y 
y ^d 
x +j 
y «*_ 

y ° 
^ 8 


>> 6 
a « 

u, g 
y o 

■5 

•4—^ • rH 

O > 

°'d 
^ w 

y _ 

*C d 
+3 y 
to • — 


y 

rd 

4-1 

y 

dO 


y 

-G 

y 

-Q 


w 73 

ai 03 

-0 ^ 
• to 


H+idd^ d 


y 

y 

73 

73 

y 

4-1 

y 

y 


>» 

d 

a 

» —4 
(H 

a 


73 

y 

^d 

to 

• r-4 

3 

d 

a . 

«+4 

O 

to y 
y t- 

> y 
’Sc^ 

to 

y 

'y 4-> 

2 

d d 


y 

S t« 
-5 y 
y 

>» Jj 

t| 
i 1 

y y 
d >> 

a, -*- 1 

d 

< a 


l l 
tH P- 

O « 

3 y 

d ^ 
d ^ 

to tJ 

•5 | 

d 

8 y 
o ^ 

fciD *4-4 

y ° 
-d >» 

H .G 


•- y 

d ° 
a d 

d 73 8 
3 ’43 
J o 


t4 

4> —4 

43 y 

4-1 

y 3 

do p— 
^ d 


t- 

y 

a 

o 

s-> 


to CL 
to . _ 

y >» to 

.a d > 
a a-sb 


,G 

y 
•»—< 

pd y 

S 3 

d 

o y 


to 

y 

• F—( 

4-1 

Ul 

d 

P4 


a 

a 


*o 

o* 

d >» 

J f 


y 


o 

a .a 

*iS P 

to >• 

rl 

vJ o 


y 

4-4 

d 

4-> 

CO 

.a 

y 

4-4 

o 

> 


d 

d 

rG 

4 -> 

y 

»4 

o 

a 

bo «— 
d o 

• —4 

Sg 

©< 


>5 y 

•d -5 • 

d 

^3 

73 23 

5 y 
.2 3 

d •- 


CO I 

-*- 1 -r 

C3 

a o- 

a 73 ^ 

a g ^ 

CC C 4-1 


CO 


CO 


a a 


b ^ 

« % 
<j a 


pi- 0 


&: 

O 


0 


to 


y 


to 


d 


y 


a 


K 

y 

>> 

4 - 


d 


d 


a 


« -A 
o 3 
►-§ 

>. 
d 
d 

(4 

o 


o 


W) y 

q 


CO 

c3 

u 


CO 


O 

y 

■— 

y 

43 

+4 

d 

o 

• 

CO 

• H 
> 


c3 

a 

• 

H 

PH 

>44 

O 

y 

4-1 

d 

Q 


d d 

• •—I 

T 

d y 
73 73 

8 *« 
q 2 
Eh a 

'S'S 

O >> 


U cS 


■4-i 

CO 

'd I 3 
a 13 
8 <5 

y 

to fl 
73 ,a 

a 

d o3 
r/' 73 
2 to 






a 

d 

q 

d 

y 

p^ 

y 

y si 

pd d 

4-j y 
o >> 

>>73 

y 

y f-, 
> y 
y pd 


■ 

d 

y 

bo 

.a ^ 

>>.a 

d 73 
73 y • 
co y 2 
y v d 
d t-> o 

H &, -s 
g d y 

P bCp -4 

y ^ a 
c/2 <5 * 


1—1 

y 


I I A K 

*4 *7* 

aftl" 


73 

y 

a 

d 

to 


a 


Is 

aa 8 ^ 

'o o y q< 

a^ 43 
o >» c 'y 

5 I'» 

II ll 


■if d y 
d d 

2 Q 

d 

O d 
^3 . 

co 
y 


(4 

(X d 

y 


d 

.3 J « 
3= c 

—4 y 

73 U 

o 

a 


d 

o 


o 

pd 


>> 

d 

d 


d 

o 

• rH 

-M 

C$ 

-*-» 

u 

73 

d 

d 

3 

3 

C/2 


to 


to 
d 

00 
rH 
®* {£ 

aH 

^ rO O 


c$ 

a 

rQ 

c3 


O 

rH 

GO 

d 

h3 


73 

y 

73 

d 

y 

a 

d 


05 


05 

rH 

05 


o 

*0 


05 

o 

05 

P-H 

to 

8 2 
d £ 
d d 


«*4 

o y 
w y 

■£ Cfi 

.a c 

Q 2. 


CO 

c6 

o5 2 

GM > 

o< d 

• h"H 
t^pd 

2 - 

« d 
^ y 

w s h -4 n 




to 

y 


co 


d __ 

^ H4 J4. 

^ d CO 


a 


4. 


to 

y «S 
- t- 


y 

1-4 

d 

■y 

Q 


GO 

<Ji 

GO 

pd 

O 

to 

is 

d 

i-5 

'y 

Q 

o 


y 


i> f—t 


0 

CO 


r\ 

W3 

oT 

GO 

TJ4 

01 

r-H 

rH 



a 

a 

pd 

43 

Ld 

rH 

r-H 

U 

U 

U 

CO 

CO 

4-> 

•X 

CO 

«> 

CO 

is 

•\ 

CO 

ts 

4-» 

O 

<3 

y 

<3 

d 

d 

d 

h-5 

. 

00 " 

CO 

* 

» 


*0 

00 

7< 

y 

y 

y 

71 

t>* 

Q 

Q 

Q 

73 

co 

71 

rH 

0 

75 

d 

. 

01 

o< 

CM 

d 

a 


















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


26 S 


a 

.2 

*cn 

’> 

o 

p 


ft 

o 


£ 


' 

« X 

o 4 

* 

-M ,—, 

e 

4 ) KS 


in 

a 

ft 


> 
a 
o 
a 

4 ^ 

-t-> >S 

a tJ 

CO C3 CO 

a> a 

o aft £ 

■P -P ft 


a 


a 

o 

co 

P 

4 

a 

S0 

o 




ft 

<n 


P 

o 


m 

p 
4 

p 4 

2 sa 

£ © 

4) 4) 

o d 

POqq 


a 

a 

4> 

cn 

C/2 


4> 

a 

4 

p 

ft 

a 

C/2 


P 

o 


p 

a 

o 

CJ 


cn a 

4 2 
MO 

a CJ 
a 

>-5 


cn 

4) 

60 

a 

a 

»“5 


H 

S «g 

co O 
J 2 O on 

8 §>3> 
^ § 12 


<D e+H 

a ° 

-M CO 

c$ 1> 

j i • *—< 

w p 

2 ^ 2 

O cn 4) 

4 «p £ 4) 

60 o S ca 

w 2 12 5 g o' ° 

p S a) 'p o 

b +j a o © -p 

a *a a » a 

o.o n >,*0 a 

0 "3 J2 -tJ *" 6 
cn 2 CJ V 


a 

a 

o 

4 

t-i 

o 


8 


« 8 


P 

4 

a3 

p 

4) 

rP 


a 

o 

• rH 

cn 

• 

o 

4 

-a 

4) 

a3 

H 


a 

2 £--cs 
^ 2 a 
^ a =« 

5 3 *E 

Hh n 

M >>Ja 

a o a 
.§ a >5 

gat 

cs.2 ft 


O 4> 
p aj 
to - 1 -’ 

.2 >» 

a^ « 

t t) « 

o 4 4J 

4 -2 ‘p 
c5'S O 

S3 
8 3 

a 53 

cn 

w « t 

o a g 

4 p Pi 


a 

4) 

P 

o 

a 

a 

a 


£3 

S3 

&. a 

60 

a 

ift 

na o 

4> ^ 

a & 

• >-< .0 

g § 

1-5 

4 a 
-a a 


p ’■rt 

2 § 
*h eS 

a 

41 
aft 


a 

o 

• 

H-> 

cj 


0) 


c$ 


c3 


2 m "be 

l*8>.g O 

.. h |j 
a ^ o 

a£.aa 


a 

o 

■ 

a 

g 

cn 

60 

4) 

(-. 


>> 

a 

a 

• H 
f-i 

ft 

13 

Pi 

4» 

a 

4> 

60 

41 


4; 

4» 

ft 

cn 

4> 

p 


a 

a 

• H 

Z2 

W 


a 

> 

a 

^ • 
c3 >: 

a J 

15 

a «4-i 
ft o 

^13 


’H-H *—5 

O c3 

K. <D 

b a 
o 

TJ 60 
cn 
4> 

a **s 
-5 0 

4> 

^ aft 

'o a 
a 4 

0 -2 
o ft 

4) cu 

cn cn 


a «5 


in 5^ 

P O 

a 

4) 

D 
■*-> 
a a 
o u 

8 g 

4 o 


^ «4-< CO 

O o « 

g 

o o .-d 

60 *i—» 

a a 

a 

P ^ K_ 

0 a & 


cn 
41 
> 
a “4 


d 4 4 

4 4 aft . 

tn P +-> +-> 


a aft a 
a 0 

cn -,-j 

§1 
>> 

5ft *n 

C3 .fh 

a w 

C 4) 

. ft -5 

60 dft 

2 o P3 

880 
^88 


4 

4-j 

a 

+j 

w 

4 


a 

o 

^3 


■a 

in 

4 


4 

aft 


4 

£ 


4C3 


4 

aft 


3* |a 

ft 

o 


cn 

4 

*-> 

a 

-a 


'a 

a 

o 

4 

4 

cn 


(_ 4) 

CC • ■—1 


p 

4 

aft 

o 

-M 

4 

o 


-a 
a 
03 2 
o-5 

In 

4 a 
.-a •" 

.SP 2 
^ 8 
o ft 

^ 2 - 

4-> a 


o « 
o a> 
4 

cn *5 


ft 4 

a 

3 § 

4 a 

. o 

d cn 
a 4 

a *c 

*2 a 

& a 


a s-c 
a a 
ft 


a 

4 

a c5 

o ^ 

a ^ 

4 

aft 

a 

« 2 
u >2 

a yft 


^ a 

■ga 

_a 

>> ^ 


p 

o 

aft 

-t-> 

a 

a 


a ^ 

a 2 

.a 4 

p ^ 

cut 


ft jo 

" 05 
l> 1 —I 

rH 

05 r-C • 
C— 1 CJ) »o 

rH 

•-T • N 

CO ^ 7 
®* o 00 
« 00 
o< o< 

CO 

CD 4 
• 05 O 

ft cn 


TfT 2 

o ^ 

*0 Hft 

^ S5* 


co 

00 


O »Q 03 ^ 

h «5 a h 
O* 05 


CJ 


rrH 

h ® «5 
o a • 
05 a 


d a a a 4 

“ fcj r 9 00 
- CJ co 


05 


a 5 


4 CJ 

a . 

a *2 


1 co 
000 

05 05 05 
CO I—• '—' 


P ^ cn 05 

od « h 

K 


a 

• r-i 
60 


■ 3 S 

o 


co 

p' a 
8 hJ 

o 


cn 

if 


cn 

Pf . . . w 

a a o 4 

hJ hJ Pa cn 
















Optional Primary 


264 


The Annals of the American Academy 


©3 

o 

H-» 

c3 

'a 

o 

& 

4> 

ft 

<3 

CO 

<u 

-ft 

d 

"d 

• r-H 

dJ 

d 

d 

u 


ft 

o 


co 

o> 

CJ 

a 

o 


CO 

d 

o 


4) 

Ph 


>> 

ft 

O 

-ft 

d 

d? 

d 

d 


.iSS 

u -a 

d 95 

kh 3 


s a 


*d 

d 

d 

>i CO 
d 45 


1 0 c3 
45 

ft to 

•g d 
o \2 

45 4-1 

K -43 
45 « 
d ^ 

i-2 M 

£ .2 


tH ** 

Oh © 
45 to 

tH . 

O >> 

U-i _Q 

<D ^ 

-Q dJ 

CO 45 

tft p 
d fcfl 
dJ *m 


45 I • 

.si-3 

Cj 

s.« 8 

d 45 

^ £«a 

§ | *» 

a “ 


u 


CO 

a 

45 


tH 

Oh 

45 


d 

a 

45 

H-> 

d 

dJ 


• *00 
>>C/2 45 
C5 45 
* • 

:2 P o 

d5 

§ O® 
u d 

H-> 
CO CO 

«ft ^ 

° § - 
bfl 2 

d w 2 

.2 d 
43 © fl 
d J3 05 

tH ©I CO 


O 

*0 


a 

45 

CO 

CO 

<2 


: >> 


tC 


d 

tH 

- 45 
d ft 

8 J 

1j 


d 

d 

o 

45 

d) 

d 

d 

«\ 

CO 

45 

45 

ss 

o 


45 O 


CO -ft 
.2 d 

■S 

d co 

ft, tH 

^ 45 


23 


•& ° 
a; 

4-> 

'd .5 

d co 

.2 o 

•ft +j 
Oh 

O ft* CO 

d 


co -C3 

ft* fl 

4 h d 

'd 

e» 

O co 

a; 

■NT • H 

co c3 

s a 


p 

a 


co g 
• *r 
P Oh 


I h-5 

d o 

5 ‘E 

O -ft 

o .2 
o ^ 

-ft 

co ~C 
d fl 

>5 °3 

M 

3 >> 

d .-2 
d3 cj 
d 

d * 

>s 


a 


O *43 g 

&§-g 

co 2 CJ 

d H ^ 

^ - d3 

O co £ 
CO .2 d 

fH 

• S n 
11! 
a e s 

o -ft 4 d 


>» -d 
-O d 


d 


co 

tH 

45 


cd 


45 


O 

> 

^ ©* 
2 d3 . 
-d ;© t>> 

^ d 
d 

45 CJ 


co 

d 

a 

d P 

I s 

-ft 45 


CO 

CO 

45 

d 


I- 

CO 

. 45 

M -s 


03 

0 ) 03 

S h 


>> 

a 

d 45 

S 2 co co cd 95 

45 3 45 Cd CJ 

45 d ® >» ° 

Si) 45 d P 

d d d ^ 

„ O 4) 2 o o 

PtflUOUUH 


o a 
•J3 o 

7 d •»—« 

d -ft 
ft Oh 

-3 O 

O' 

45 

Q 


«4-H I 

O ft 

>> -ft 
h-5 45 

"ft ^ 

O K. 

a d 
I S 

• r-< S 

pj s 

ft Oh 
45 ^ 

o 2 
O S 


t? 1 

d s 


a 


CO 


fH fH 

a o 

®+H 

o'd 
-2 *45 

45 ,-d 

'■P 45 

^ JO 

45 

.a c^ 

a ^ 

d co 


§ £ 
co 33 


C/2 


”C 

d 

d 

CO 

ft 

45 

45 

m 


d 


0 ? 
o >» 

• ^ 

.2 -d 
45 *d 

G t ~ 

45 
T3 

>> | a 

ft O .ft 


Kft 

ft 

d 


45 


d 

'S -ft 
d ® . 
d d *d 

a a^ 


ft 

Oh 

45 

ft 

O 


o o Hft 

,3 d id 

"2 *ft ’P 
d ® ^ 

W) -ft* c5 
d ft d 

• ft d 

a a a 

45 45 
> -d 
O -ft 45 
W)ftn -d 
4J ® -ft 

>>’3 
H ."2 d 


d 

o 

• ■-* • 
-ft d 

^ *S 

’45 45 
-d 
-ft 

as 


■ft ft 


45 


d 03 
d 

ft -d 

45 CO 


rd 

45 

id 45 

O 45 
■ft 3d 
CO Oh 

.2 3 

tJ < 

d 

PH 


d d 

I ‘3 

45 

«+-h' d 

(-j .ft 

W CO 
ft 9> 

•Kp ft 

6 ^- Oh 

o 

01 

•ft 

60 d d 
d o 

.—H •— 

■ft 4) -ft 
CO ?3 45 

d o 45 
O > "45 


I HH I 

O cj d 

d -ft a 
o o -d 

• »-H 

CO 

4-J C-> 

52 45 ft 

d r-i Q. 
45 CP 
■“ 1 -ft 

•ftftH 03 

d o 

CO 


1 

45 

Oh . 

■ft b 

« d 

d a 

” .ft 


ft 

Oh 


55/3 ft 

d -P. 


d 

45 

45 


^ o o 
Ph e2 > 


.33 45 

- 4 ^ 

OJ 

V. W) 

> pH 

S 'd 


c3 

a 

• rH 
fH 

PH 

e+H 

O 

0 ) 

H-> 

c3 

Q 


d 

o 

• »-H 

H-> 

4-> 

• i”H 

u 

-d 

d 

d 

45 

h-j 

d 

H-j 

in 


6 

d .2 45 

-ft 

d • 


45 


C/2 


CO 

ft 

cd 


., 45 
■ft ft 
co O 

Ej «HH • 

Cri 45 CO 
' .2 


- .d 

>» >) 45 

i.gfa 


g co 

>»3 3 

d d P 


< *d C/2 "43 


03 

U 


-d 

45 

33 

£ 2 

p a 


d a 

P ^ 

^ >*22 

-§u 

5 do 

^ 2 P 

^ a o 

H d rft 


• i/j ^ 

1_h 

P so 

P £ 

- d 

©I •- P 

05 05 

^ 05 O 
to 

o 

. n rft 
>» ©I 05 

O 1 > rft 


hC CO 

45 ^ 
C/2 c« 
I—) 

©f 

©I . 
05 r-H 
ft iO 

»o 

ft 

CO I 

4) ft 

-ft A 
43 05 
d ^ 
h-> »o 

C/2 ft 


CO 

©I 


©I 

©I 

05 


I 4 ) .ft H-> 

P ft ^ 

<3 hj .d 2_ _ 

bcpH a d 

d d ft Oh 

• I—( • I—< • • l-H 

'd rH 2 CJ 

>* 8 o 

"d 2 P ^ 3 

S 0.8.S 8 

td 45 ft d ft 3 

pH C3 i-H O 

M fn ^ a; 

® m 2 ^ ^ O 

ft 22 33 ft 45 2 

• ft d <U -p ft ^5 

P bo bcH OhS 


co 


©I 

ft 

05 


00 

ft 

05 


GO 

ft 

to 


If?. 

’Sc ^ 05 CO 

ftp ft 05 

> 





















266 


The Annals of the American Academy 


i 


cfi 

W 


43 

> 

tf 

O 

3 

£ 

o 

P3 

Q 

a 

H 


43 


£ 

O 

ffl 


d a 
2 

«*-. d 

o *c 

a. 

W 


a 

o 

o 


<u 

03 


• - 

a ^ 
a £ 

O O 
o 

. 4) 

>s r' 
•m o 

M 0) 
« SJH 

Ph d 


d g 

a.2 

-f-> 

a 

43 
> 
a 
o 
'G <=> 

Oh m 


d 

a 


d 

a 


d 43 
43 


43 

43 

a 

C/2 


43 

43 


i 

o 

43 


£3 ~0 
d 43 
o, +-> 

C3 

. 43 

>>5Q 

-Q d 
-d ‘3 

43 d 

~ 3 

rT 1 *M 

CM O 


d 

d 


43 

43 


a 

a 

o 

43 

^ • 
tJ ^ 
gji 

Mh CJ 
. 0 ) 
>5 J+H 

« a 


43 03 

a ,2 

d fcn 


d 

£ 

o 

03 


43 

*■> 

d 

a 

• rM 

a 

o 

a 


d * 

a 8 

>» d 

■£ 

Cm 43 



03 

d 

o 

• »—H 

W 

• H 
> 
O 

M 

Oh 

o 

55 


03 

d 

o 
•«—< 
03 

'> 

O 

M 

o- 

o 

£ 


03 

d 

o 


> 

o 

M 

a 

o 

55 


a 

o 

• pM 

03 

’> 

O 

M 

Oh 

o 

55 


m 

w 

H 

◄ 

Q 

M 

a 

5 

u 

&H 

o 

6 
O 

H-l 

H 

<5 

43 


H 

a 

H 

u 


1 o 

• «* ™ 

o „ 

d t« 
43 43 

>>4g 
4-> 4d 

53 ° 

Oh -M> 
_ 43 

• mH 

^ Cm 
C 3 .+-> 
r _ tf) 

CO .PM 

o> n3 

cd 

M -O 

d 


43 

43 


d 


d 

* d 


d w 
d >> 

a d 
"d 

M 

'd *C 
-d ^ 

° 03 

>» « 
■M -M 

A m 2 
d ^ 
d *m 

S'S 

t* d 
>» 43 

d - 

a 

• *M 

M 
Oh 


a 


d 

d 

o 

43 


03 

• 3 
d m 

rd O 

d « ^ 

a 43 03 

4-> 43 
5 d -M 
M2 -M d 
d M d 


d 


u 

o 

’E 03 
Q. 43 
4d 

03 - — 
>> 
d 
~0 


>> 

d 

a 

• pH 

Cm 

a 

43 

M 

O 


03 

d 

o 

*03 

• pM 
> 
o 

M 

Oh 


d -■£) 
43 

«*- 

O M 
d 
d 

43 « 
lO 03 

• pM 

43 

O 43 

• <-i t,.. 


d 

.2 

‘■*3 

d 

43 


d 

-M 

d 

-o 

pv 

-d 

43 


d 

•- 40 


43 43 
43 M2 


03 

d 

03 

d o 

<1 






«*- 

43 



03 

• 


o 

M2 



d 

o 

• H 

CO 

• M 

• 

• 

• 


d 

o 

• rl 

d 

a 


c; 

o 


>> 


d 


Cm 

<3 

Cm 

Oh 

d 

* P*M 

43 

Cm 

o 

• l-M 

-M 

d 

• pH 

£ 

5 

13 

o 

55 

Cm 

8 

d 

MJ 

d 

43 

OJ 

Q 

• M 

-M 

43 

Oh 

d 

‘5b 

Sh 

Q 


o 

M 



> 


























268 


The Annals of the American Academy 


w 

o 

44 

o 

H 

© 

jz; 

o 

u 

w 

Cfi 

© 

•< 

H 

* 

n 

H 


3 

d 

.a 

a 

o 

£ 


Fh 

d 

co 

co 

« 

o 

45 

£ 

45 

44 

O 

> 


A -d 

be 05 
•fl 73 

ft ^ 

Fh d 

° 45 
co Fh 
45 d 

4-> 

O -d 
> d 


45 


O 

a 


1 45 
d 

ft *43 

2 « 
ft a> 

45 gj 

w s 

45 -5 

be 4-1 

Fh 

d 


to 


45 

4-> 

O 

> 

co 


- 1 45 

0) bC,d 

-d o 

rd 
£ 


-t-> 

o 

> 


.2 05 

O 1/5 

'S ^ 



be -y 
d 5 

V d 



•r d 

•8 * 

Fh 4-5 



> o 
S u 

«0 co 

73 

3 

45 d 

od 

o 

^ 45 

Fh 

+2 45 

*C rd 
o £ 

A - 

45 

4d 

• rH 

45 

45 

ft 

CO 

4-5 

O 

45 

o 

> 

45 

CO 

45 

rd 

be 

• pH 

^ «*H 

« o 

& 4) 

T? 45 

ft! O 
d ^ 

d Fh 

^3 CO 

0> 

£ 

a 

U JH 


C to 

F- 

• S *H 

o 

CO 4; 

*44 

d ^ 
- 13 2 

>» 

Fh 

t7 ^ 

d 

rH 

d >» 

a 

• 

d .-g 

O 2 

45 O 

Fh 

ft 

• r-» 

a 2 

73 

d 

o 

45 


45 

CO 


a 

d 


d 

4-1 

d 

45 

CO 

o 

U 

ft 


(4 

o 

d 

u 

4) 

> 

O 


73 
a? d 
ajd cs 

(3 -tj 


CO 


45 M 

d rd 

d 13 

O d 
4> 45 


d 

4) 


JC <U m 

4) Fh 

r—H • ^ • 

d C/2 

2 cr • 

-d 4) !—i 

4J (H H 


Second 

First and 
second. 

• 

« 

• 


V 

• 

• 

• • 




45 




• 

o 

o 

4-> 

CO 


d 

o 

rd 

'o 

rd 

ft 


o 

CJ 

45 

ft 


•ft 

CO 

to t7 

”w 



.2 

• r - 'd 

. ts 3 



ft 

ft o 

ft o 


CO 

g 

< 

* S 

° 3 

* W 

2fc 

% ° 

H 

O 

PS 


• Fh 

4) 

73 

Fh 

O 

.2 
4-5 
45 
rd 
c3 

rd 

ft 

5 


45 45 
d rd 

4-5 


d 

o 


a 


Fh 

45 
45 
45 CO 
■■0 45 

o | 

d 


ci 

.2 

4-> 

45 

rO 

d 

rd 


«4H 


a 

O 


c3 

ft 


d 

45 


• pH 

73 


73 

ft 

o 

• 

•ft 

45 . 

45 Fh 


o 

d 45 

45 


--H rQ 

-ft 

cd 

>H f, 

ft o 


a 

o 

• rH 

CO 

’> 

o 

u 

ft 

o 


d 

45 

ft 

o 


o 

« 

CO 

O 

© 

CJ 

d 

o 

H 

ft 

O 


co 

45 

4—5 

o 

t> 

V-C 

o 

d 


d 

4> 

td 

• pH 

13 

d 

a 


73 

45 

co 

O 

—H 

CJ 


d 

45 

Fh 

05 

Sd 

'■3 


d c 
d 


d 

-Q 

73" 

45 

Fh 


CO 

4-> 

J3 

13 

rd 

CO 

45 

CO 

d 


e3 

« 

a ft 

d 2 
-d r g 
d ft 

HH 

<1 


-4 45 

3 ft 

S' >» 

F4 & 

d a 

o 

.J3 co 
ci H 
Fh 


45 Fh 
> O 
d 

rd 03 

CO .2 

& A 

4-5 O 

•a a 2 

§ 45 « 

a ^3 p 

o ^ > 

O 45 ^ 
O 


^•c 


45 


co O 

•rH 

be ^ 

45 

ft 


45 

CO 

45 


CO 

d 

o 


Fh Jj 

ft 13 

O Cd 


73 

45 

Fh 

45 


co 


Fh 

A bD 

8 & 


.2 >> g 

3-c §• 

05 O Fh 
45 -d 45 

A ^ £ 

H 


o 

ft 

CO 

4-5 

O 

9 

rd 

d 

* 

o 

CO 

4-5 73 

•5 -1 05 

to F4 
44 

1=3 3h 

•r o' 

n 45 

ft Fh 

r^ 4-5 
4-5 Q, 

e3 *a 

3 a « 


45 H 

4-> r-4 

tw rr« 

• i—< w 


d 13 
c8 O 


CO rd 

§ 3 

^ ft 

< 


45 

Fh 

K 

ci 


8 


45 

rd 


73 

45 

Fh 

• 

d 

cr 

45 

^4 

45 

Fh 

a 

CO 

Fh 


$ 8 

Jig 

45 ^ 

Q 


ft) 

a 

tw 

OP 

ft) 

a 

a . 

45 

.13 4-> 
2 ° 
2 > 

cS tH 

3 A 

t» g 
■£ -2 

n c8 

Ph w 


-M 

c3 • 
ft g 

45 O 

rd *J3 

44 13 

'S 4d 

08 ^ 
73 d 

45 

• ^ p 

°^rd 

45 +3 

Sh n 


co 

• —4 

d 

o 


45 

rd 

• rH 

Fh 

45 

—- CO 
03 45 

c _ Fh 

ft 


.22 
*g> d 

g« a 
























Digest of Primary Election Laws 


269 


<o 

4-> 

o 

> 

CO 

0 ) 

bD 

• pH 

a 


4> 

o 

> 


a 




CO 

e3 


b£) 

C 


~ £ 

O 

rft 

CO 

CO c 

<u 8 

_i_i c 

c3 *43 
■X) c3 

13 +-> 

2 r 
as tc 

4> a> 


^ 2 
0J 03 

£ -£j 

a* 

© tJ 

*-> c3 

is y 

4> A 

■~- p£J 
2 

O' . 
4 

* o 


co 

fi 

O 

— 

o 

CD 

T3 


a 

o 

sa 

4> 

43 


oS 

• pH < 

-t-> 

sa 

CD 

-o 

• i—< 

co 

4 

f- 

ft 


CO QJ 
> *4 

*S Q 

5 *~ 

fl ° 
4 
CO 
4) 

U 

ft 

4) 

a 


i_( • i ii 

cS 0 O a; 4J 

i o ,p 1 4h o 

CD -8 
■M 03 f ™i 

<5 3 

0 JH 3 c« 32 

b“S-3 s S| 

-- ft j >? M a 
ft C 


a 

3 


3 4) »j 


aS 

ft 


O 4> 


4> 

M 


c/4 be ft »H co 


(H 

aS 

ft 


»i 

.5 ft 
c ft 

*Sc r ? 
^ c/j 


O *3? 

5 ° 
4 a; 
41 CO 

2 § 
as Ld 

2 a 

a 

CD 4_> 

&JD 

■S O 

t3 

—< 41 

4J 41 

c3 a 


4> 

CO 

a* 

o 

a 

4) 

45 

t-H 

o 

«*1 

0 ) 

4) 

a 


o 

3 

4 

aa 


CO 

41 


Si c3 
O be 


















270 


The Annals of the American Academy 


CO 

H 

M 

o 

E 

o 

£ 

O 

M 

H 

O 

s 

w 


0) 

d 


a 

a 

o 

O 

4-> 

o 

• rH 

-4—' 

CO 

• pH 

Q 

"d 

3 

.2 

•» 

to 

V 

s- 

60 

d 

o 

U 


"2 ^ 

53 d 

§ .a 

ffl g 

§£ 

•43 43 
o o 
« d 


d 

d 

o 

U 


o £ 2 

■8?! 

s 


to 4) 

*-> -f-> 

2 d 

'to 

d 02 
O 0) 
d A 

d 
d 


a o-g 

■2 £? £ . 
(S.H d) S 

o-j rr 


5 


CO 


p 

O 

<u .-3 

43 -a 

■* i 

m-< 

O bJj 

- C 


a; 

Ph 

c$ 

co 

£ 

o 

3 . 


o d 

• pH £_ 

.2 g 43 
t> > d 

'S 60 w 
0; — 


O Zj 

o .g 

-a a 

■ M o 

£ ° 
,2 s d 
r> W 

5 d 

o ^ 

8 = 

d -h 


rd 5 ^ d 


>> s 


d X! _d 

•H ^ ^ 


a ^ 

II 

js * 

d d 


d 

o 

O CO 

to •£ 


d 

u 

O 


SL'-o 

^42 

d 


>H ^ CO .d 

12 ^ ”3 

a a o 

* a •£ 

5 to- 

Cw c3 

»•> 


CO *H 


a.2 




2 >> 


-. d q 

-5 « d 

s a o 

. , «4-H 

>» d "0 
jj d d 
M d 

£ d J 

' ^ 

2 d to 

S tJ- 

O d Jj 

„, tn -h 

.2 .s a 

•3 o i 

I 2 8 

5^0 

8 •§ a 

*< > t —1 


T3 
d 
. d 
£j 60 

ft & 

Si t« 
2 53 
d co 
d d 

6c a 

« d 
d w 
O d 

*-h rl 

co 

sH 


y, • 

■2 >» 
d •<-> 
co d 

— 3 
a o 

d d 

,2d3 

d- d 

J5 o 


O -73 

C/3 <13 

d 

t-i BJ 

ee 

d ro 
h co 

Ja 

7 d 

cS 

13 d 

C co 

0) 

f-i 

3 

CL. • 

g> d 

CO • r~* 
• * +J 
0 ) CO 

a) ^2 


> p~ p— < 

d d 

' • >-H 

c 


a 

.2 d 


a 


u 1 

r-J d 

c3 co 

c -- 

o 12 

‘co 

CO 
d 


fee 


d 

o 

u 

"O 

d 

a 

IS 

d 

d 


• p—< . 

CO jJ 

•5 d 
.a d 


^ K. 
^-1 >-> 
d d 


„ a 

d w 
43 d 


1 

a 


u> 

. d 

d 

5 a 

.■3 a 

a a 

a 


o 

d 

d 

> 


3 ^ 
3 

d 


d 

X 4X 

d o 

+-> d 

co O 


a ~ 

o 3 

U d s 

Sh O 

>>‘o CJ 

d .—I d 
3 .d > 

O •£ -43 

03 3 

^ d 
•f 3 

d • r-s »-> 

d n 

+j _a H 
•3 2 d 

§ 

c.Scfi 

C-> co ® 

-v fl) 

2 d 

• rt Jj 2 
33 d 

d s 2 

d d 0 
O >> 

W o A 


rs O 

d co 

d ’S 
d 3 h“ 

s .2 

^ <0 

a 2 

o 

fl) • 

a d 

d ^ 

02 d 


% y >, 

d >3 

C3 3 

M CO 

„ d 
rT d 

3 ^ 


d 

o 


e3 

w .d 

3 13 

d d >» 
Ch d -g 

a 'd 3 

o 

w 13 

fl I 

| S g 

co 6C«i3 


o 

d 

a 


a 


d 


d 

CO 


c$ 


ci 


a 

o 


eo 


a 

O *p3 

° d . 
d d d 
43 rj « 
-*- 1 ^ d 

*0 % 

0 co 3 

8 

£ | >> 

a f,g 

a-^§ 

i«3 d d 


d 

d 

'd 


d 

t- 

d 

3 

d 

60 

to 

d 

d 

a 

d , 

02 


3 

O 


3 J2 

a © 

O r2 

«« _Q 

O ^ 

d -3 

60 d 
T3 to 
3 d 
• —» 

V Q_ 

S d d 
d "o ^ 



a d 
■3 a 8 

»3 S , 
3 d g" to 
d d r -jj 

•% W 


3 

d 

> 

3 

o 

d 

d 

■4> 

d 


d 

a 

fH 

P. 


W ^ 

5 & 

° d 

5 ^ 

"d b 
60 ^ 

-2 H 3 
d d 
-3 3 
*1 

d s? 

^ o 

be 

° 4J 

~ o 

6 a 

- 8 

t-i % 

O d 
^3 to 
3 *2 
08 d 

^ a 

h *C 

d q, 

a ^ 

tH 

d y 
3. 3 
O w 5,1 
fe -H 
3- 3 In 

d 42 d 

-5 - 

3 d 

*0 2^ 
d •_£ 4-> 

^ a >» 

d d n 
d > ^ 
3 d 
O 3 
° fe 

13 . O 
•77 42 

d -t-> 

42 ’3 d 

d n d 

^ o CO 

^ t>-, 2 
(ji KO CO 

§ -3 3 
3 3 a) 
3 C4 
L? 3 X 

S3 0 « 

a 

‘Co 53 

pL, * j -O 
-■ t-c 3 

<3 o d 


•s. <yj 
P 44 
+-> u* 

10 "tJ 

^ O 
3 * 

O -4-> 

c5 

A«©- 

co 

3 to 

Jr 3 «6 
^4 ■ >—> 


3 

O 


H3 d 
d 43 

d 

8 * >> 
S 42 
a 

d 5 

53 ■+ J 

d 

d w a, 
3 o 

^ ~3 T3 
d ^ 3 
*43 W d 

Q 


r—H CQ 

cj ^ S 


a u 

§■1 
4 ; d 
t-i co 
d d 

• pH 


CO 

0 ) 

35 

4-> 

£ 

a 


o 

d 


co 

d 3 
. 2 § 
^ d d 

d 

0 < d +-> 


■ o 
3, 
d 
43 

-4> 

42 

T3 

*d 

Oh 

d 

Pi 

d 

co 

d 

• pH • 

S3 a 

.§ JS 

ft 60 

*H-H 3 
O 33 

co 

^ 2 

to i-M 

d ^ d^ 

*Eb^ a 

o 






















Digest of Primary Election Laws 


271 



i >> 

-t-> ?.i 

, 5 
-g a 
P 

«s ,p 
o 

“ S3 

P V 
fcC " 

'■g n 

P o 


-3 -rH q 

° £ ft 

:2 I 1 p 

C$ 3 4-3 

^ S-l 

p £ 

03 ^'rP 

■ ^ 


t/J o 
* *» • »■■* 

p 


1) w 
P ^4 

£ * 
-P p 

H 


V H 

w rt g 

p 3 ° 


2 * 

P 4; 

A „ 

«g £ 

'.« 8S 

§3 

>>■5 

-P O 


0^ /S 

*o W 


p’s * 

ft ft*T3 

«*H 'g 

O P3 


X) 

P 

_Q 

• r—* 

t* 

5 

«3 


P 

cS 

P 

O 


P 

o3 

O 

>> 

-ft 

T3 

• i“H 

cs 

ft 

p 

i s 

P 42 
“ =3 

P '■n 

p .y 

ft -o 


p 

"5 

• r~+ 

0C 

_g 



















Convention Date of Convention 


272 


The Annals of the American Academy 


X) 

0) 

XJ 

• pH 
> 
O 
u 
Ol 

H-> 

o 

£ 


o 

o 

• pH 

’> 

O 

tH 

o 

£ 


X> O ft 
'© 3 g 
-3 CO h3 
t» -ft 
•ft 3 OT 
>5 O 
tH *rt 2* 

«s ft ^ 

a a? 

•- > »o 
X) © :ft 

g ©--a 

O h-> £3 

ft ft 3 

© 4-> • 

ft © 2 £ 

«4H ft «+H 

I—i h-> hO ft 


S* 

H 


© 


0 M o; 


-+-• 

c3 

a 

0 


ft 

-M 

W 

• pH 

4-» 

fl 

«*H —H 4J 

° 3^ 

a 

c#a 

Sh 

OP 

3 ft a> 

© 

O 

<HH 

> 

3 

.2 

ft th 

-r-» 

hn 


© O 
"O © 

’> j=i 

O © 

tH - 

a m 

i>s O 
ft ■*-> 

s s 

5 ft 
Is W» 

4-> © 

“ ’© 
© XJ 

«HH 
**H — 

2 § 

§••§ 

• HH Si 

03 J" 
© 

© 
hO 


• w~1 

P> 


hQ 

3 . 
t« g 

I—I «HH 

ft m 

© ft 

• H i 73 

h-> .33 
03 > 
o o 
o< £ 

►» ft 
3 X 
ft ft 

«*H ft 

O <u 

© la 
© .2 
■ti t» 


a 

a 

o 

© 

>> 

+4 

tH 

ft 

ft 

© 

h3 

+-> 

X 

1=1 

ft 

© 

© 


a 

a 

o 

O 

© 

> 

• ph 
4-> 

=3 

© 

© 

X 

W 

© 


© 

-3 


«HH W> 

O q) 
03 03 
3 ■*• 
O 4J 

* |""i ft 

3 to 

© tH 
> © 

oB 

© o 

a h 


e3 

S CC 
S 0) 

■Sh 


tH 

ej 

ft 


•+J tH 

s ft 

0) p-TO 

go 

O tH 

© o 


• pH _J ** 

-»-> TO 

ft a • 
^ ft a 

»Q O 
© V-5 

X oj 


© 

H-> 

03 

s 


tH 

© 


a ft 

§ >> ft 

w c3 

© X £ 
2 33 « 
«3 O 3ft 
03 X 

© ^3 


e3 


ft 


ti £ 03 
^ 30 © 

x a ^ 

ft .jft -M 
tH fti 03 

<2 « w> 

o ft 

03 " *3 

© X 
-*-> -ft ft 

x 03 'll 
x - a 
ft 
ft 

u 

•0> 
ft 
© 

> 
ft 
o 
© 


03 

• H. 

ft! 

o 


03 

ft 

o 


ft 

o 


ft 
© 
> 
ft 
o 


ft 
ft 

>> 8 


JU 

*© 

"S 

ft 

o 

• f—« 
-0> 

o3 

ft. 

X 

ft 

ft 

A 

ft 

o 

• pH 

-M 

ft 

© 

ft 

O 

U 

"ft 

ft 

.2 

ft 

£ 

© 

-ft 


03 

© 

+4 

ft 

bC 

*2 

'© 

«HH 

o 

ft 


03 33 

© © <=> 
i-ft *3 'aj 


ft 

0 


gH 

«« ^ 
bio © 

• pH 

C0 



ft -0 

• pH 

> 

• pH 

tH 

ft 

a 

© . 
ft3 ft 

4-> © 

P-H 4_J 

a; ^ 

^ § 

.0 

• tH 

(H 

O ^ 

C[; «4h 

jj r _ 

w 

tH 

0) 

a 

^ a 

"3 C/3 • 

2 a 

13 

Jh 

§* a 
a 8 

g 3 § 

© tH H-> 

^ ("H 
4-» 

s 

0 

^ ft 2 
ft -0 JH 


Ca ^ 


• •—< QJ 

0 3 X h . 


© 

nft 

4J 

4-> 

ft 


_ ft 
ft ft 

8 8 

b ft 


a 0 
© 

03 

O 

-ft © +J 

© ■s « 

^ >> © 
^3 


ft 


3 ^ 
O ft 
© X 


03 


03 

© 


tH 

ft wb £ 

g ft © 
ft ft "o "S 
44 Q > x 

M 


ft >1 
03 r* 

8 ft 

a a 

ft Oh 

■ a © 
$ 5 
© 

'a | 

g-s 

O X! 
w © 
-H H-J 

ft © 

tH © 

^■a ft 
<©« 


03 


3 

O 

• pH 

H4> 

3 

© 

> 

3 

O 

© 


tH 

ft 

O. 

>> 

3 

ft 


03 

© 

H-> 

ft 

bD 

h2 

"© 

x 

HJ 

© 

"© 

o 


© 

,=3 

© 

-O 

>» 

ft 

a 

03 

© 

• pH 

F-4 

ft a 
'G).§ 
o £ 


O 


>> 

Od 

© 

3 

4 -> 

3 

© 


Virginia 

Framed by convention. 












State Assessment of Candidates 


Digest of Primary Election Laws 


273 


& 

TO 0) 

d © 

CO 

, d 

Ch *n 

O 

© 

© ft) 
d 

1 a 

• fh 

£ a 

in 

© co 
73 a) 

* m 
d d 

a; o 

a 

>> © 

2 © 

a s 


•, © CO 

* > d 

v ■rj O 


O 

+J 

■M 

o 

d 


o3 co 
Ph T* 

0) > 


a ft) 

id 

a D ® 
H 

H 
d 


© 


o 


0) 

&B 

ti 

cO 


a; 

fcG 

Ch 

c3 


s a 

~ i 

o 


d 
© 

a 

in 

in 

© .£r 
in tn 
i2 d 

■< pH 


frr>rj ••■* 
d © 

* & 

•> 

(H b ^ 

3 cj +j 
• H d d 

IT m 5 
d O 
O w © 

*-M "t-l rH 

d 03 .3 

3 0) _ 

» 

o © 
a d 

o ° 

g*3 

rs 

»o 


d ft 
© •-» 

3 rd 
co 

in p 
© £ 
febS 

d 

3 «0 
W €©■ 

• #s 

O in 

tO ^H 

es- 8 
-Sfi 
« o 


o 

ft} 


d 

S-H 

© 

d 

© 

bfi 


d 


© 

£ 


* 

© 

~n ft 
d © 
d a) 
d © 


P“i • 

«©• «$ 
2 d 

© 4-n 
*' CO 

in 

o O 

w %-H 

*■*•> o 
"£ *d 

d «©■ 

Ph 73 
sh d 
O d 


© 

1 8 

^ CO 

^ co" 

*H 8 

o © 

m o 
© 

•p 4-> 

o © 
> *c 


ft! 

© 

■M 
• ^ 

ft) 

© 

t-t 


€©■ 

r» 

co . 

a a 
© ^ 
o 
o 

d o 

o >> 
O 


sa 


8 ^ 
© 

S 2 

o «• 


© 
"2 * 
a ^ 

d H-H 
w Ch 
£ 

.-d o 
© © 


ft) 

© 

H 

• rH 

3 

C 

© 

(H 

© 

4-) 

d 

ft) 

• rH 

ft) 

d 

d 

© 

43 

© 

d 

© 

fcH 

o 




© 

© 



CO 

CO 

CO 

• 

• 


Alabama 

d 

• rH 

44 

© 

cO 

• rH 

d 

d 

44 

4 

hC 

Sh 

O 

© 

O 

d 

H-> 

d 

© 

d 

• i«H 

b£ 

• rH 


19 


2% of one year’s salary attached to the office for which 
he is a candidate. If there is no salary the fee is $ 1 . 
Paid into state, city and county treasuries. 
















Book Department 


Biographical Note: The Division of 
Biography in the Library of Congress pub¬ 
lished a list of references on primary elec¬ 
tion laws in November, 1920. A list sup¬ 
plementary to this one and bringing it up 
to date is now in preparation. 

Dewey, D. R., and Shugrue, M. J. 

Banking and Credit. Pp. vii, 506. 

Price, $3.00. New York: The Ronald 

Press Co., 1922. 

This useful volume makes no pretence 
of covering the entire field of money and 
banking. The emphasis is distinctly on 
the descriptive and practical aspects of the 
subject rather than upon historical develop¬ 
ment or the discussion of underlying theo¬ 
retical principles. Yet sufficient theory is 
presented for the purposes of the elemen¬ 
tary student or the business man who 
desires a better understanding of his rela¬ 
tions with banking and credit institutions. 

The authors assume on the part of the 
reader a preliminary acquaintance with 
the chapters on money and banking found 
in any standard text on economics, and 
thus avoid the duplication of this material 
which is usual in the first few chapters of 
books on banking. The space saved in 
this way permits a more detailed treatment 
of certain topics than can be found in other 
introductory volumes, notably the problem 
of credit analysis, to which five chapters 
are devoted, and foreign exchange. The 
operation of the federal reserve system is 
described at length. 

In order to give concreteness to the dis¬ 
cussion, there are appended some sixty 
practical problems, half of them with 
solutions. About a third of these are 
merely commercial arithmetic (interest and 
discount), but the remainder deal with 
bank statements, credit analysis, and for¬ 
eign exchange. Numerous references at 
the end of each chapter and an extensive 
bibliography are valuable guides to further 
reading. 

The merit of the book lies in its clear 
and up-to-date presentation of judiciously 
selected parts of a large subject, rather 


than in any originality of thought. It 
would be ungrateful to criticize the in¬ 
evitable omissions, in view of the con¬ 
siderable success of the authors in achieving 
their object, the “detailed description and 
illustration of actual practice in the busi¬ 
ness world.” 

Morgan, Gerald. Public Relief of Sick¬ 
ness. p P . 195. Price, $1.50. New York: 

The Macmillan Co. 

In this book, Mr. Morgan has organized 
considerable valuable material on the prob¬ 
lem of sickness and poverty and methods 
being used to meet that problem in Amer¬ 
ica, Denmark, Germany and Great Britain. 
He then discusses the facts so compiled, 
with reference to the relative success and 
failure of the methods used in those coun¬ 
tries. His conclusion is that health in¬ 
surance alone cannot meet the problem 
and that the best plan would be a two-fold 
one comprising two separately operated 
and distinct programs: one, a provision for 
contributory, compulsory health insurance; 
the other a state-wide system of public 
health centers in which the best possible 
health service would be provided, that 
service to be paid for by patients in pro¬ 
portion to their ability to pay. 

Mr. Morgan’s data for his discussion of 
the present American situation with regard 
to public relief of sickness came largely 
from the survey made by the Illinois state 
commission appointed in 1917 to study the 
subject of health insurance. He presents 
an interesting analysis of the results of 
that survey in which he points out the 
extreme difficulty of getting accurate sta¬ 
tistics as to the cost of adequate medical 
relief, as compared with the much simpler 
task of computing the wage loss caused by 
sickness. His deduction that this fact 
makes it difficult to provide adequate 
medical treatment in any system of health 
insurance appears to be borne out by the 
experience of the European countries where 
health insurance has been quite thoroughly 
tested. In all three countries cited — 
Denmark, Germany and Gr^at Britain, 


Book Department 


27 5 


with a different system in each country— 
the facts gathered by Mr. Morgan appear 
to show that adequate medical treatment 
is not provided. 

The book is a thoughtful, logical dis¬ 
cussion of a very important subject in the 
field of social work. While it may be said 
to be too sketchy to be considered a 
comprehensive study of the subject, it does 
bring together a nucleus of idea, fact and 
bibliography which should prove valuable 
to anyone wishing to pursue the subject 
further. 

W. M. L. 

Tosdal, H. It. Problems in Export Sales 

Management. Pp. 697. Price, $5.00. 
Chicago, Ill.: A. W. Shaw Co., 1922. 

Problems in Export Sales Management is 
designed for use in the so-called “case 
system” of business training. It is in 
line with similar books which have been 
prepared by other members of the staff of 
the Graduate School of Business Adminis¬ 
tration of Harvard University. Other 
volumes in the series deal with the manage¬ 
ment of retail stores, sales management, 
marketing problems and problems in 
business finance. 

One of the shortcomings of the case 
system is that some of the problems pre¬ 
sented are such that from the information 
given no one can be certain as to the 
correct answer. With only limited data 
before them both the instructor and his 
students may decide upon a particular 
policy, while a business executive actually 
called upon to decide the problem for his 
firm may decide it quite differently, in the 
light of some human element or other 
important fact which he knows to have a 
vital bearing upon the business policies of 
his firm. Another shortcoming, and one 
springing directly from the desire to 
minimize the likelihood of the one just 
mentioned, is that some problems are 
presented in such a manner that the 
answers are virtually given in the problems 
and require little reasoning on the part of 
the student. 

It would appear that the case system 
can be used to advantage only in advanced 
classes which have acquired a thorough 


groundwork in foreign trade methods and 
policies before attempting to solve many 
of the problems presented to them. Given 
a set of conditions, the student cannot 
reason intelligently as to the correct export 
method to apply, unless he knows con¬ 
siderable about all or many of the various 
methods in actual use. A book of prob¬ 
lems is more serviceable in a class of gradu¬ 
ate students than in undergraduate classes 
because the average graduate student is 
more mature and should have a wider 
knowledge of business practices. 

Professor Tosdal’s collection of export 
sales management problems shows careful 
selection and contains much practical in¬ 
formation which will be of great value in 
the teaching of foreign trade, whether or 
not the case system is generally adopted. 
The book merits careful reading by every 
teacher of foreign trade and by every 
export manager. It abounds with valuable 
examples and pertinent suggestions. 

It contains 164 problems, many of which 
were obtained from the experience of 
export concerns. They are presented in 
eleven chapters dealing with different 
phases of exporting: export sales organi¬ 
zation; research and planning in export 
trade; export policies relating to the prod¬ 
uct; export policies relating to distri¬ 
bution; export policies relating to prices 
and terms of sale; sales methods; manage¬ 
ment of export sales force; foreign branches; 
financing, credits and collections; delivery 
of export orders; and control of export 
sales and general problems. 

Suggestions for collateral reading are 
contained throughout the volume. In 
addition to the information given in the 
problems and explanatory statement of 
each chapter, the reader will find that it 
contains a classified bibliography. 

Grover G. Huebner. 

Persons, Frank W. Central Financing of 

Social Agencies. Pp. 284. Price, $2.00. 

Columbus, Ohio: Columbus Advisory 

Council, 1922. 

This is an exceedingly timely and in¬ 
telligent survey of community financing 
as a method of solving the present needs of 
social agencies. 


276 


The Annals of the American Academy 


The author, a well-known leader in 
philanthropic work, has based his study on 
the experience of the six cities which have 
tried to solve their social financial difficulty 
by the community plan. The book out¬ 
lines the various functions of organization, 
budgets, soliciting funds, administration, 
education, and then sums up the difficulties 
and advantages. One gathers the advan¬ 
tages well outweigh the difficulties and that 
there are many possibilities of cooperation 
and elimination of waste yet to be worked 
out. 

Among the advantages are: more givers, 
agencies released from money struggle, an 
accurate estimate of social needs and com¬ 
munity spirit created, as against diminish¬ 
ing returns from drives, standards of 
agencies levelled, new developments 
checked and the control of social work 
vested in a small group, which tends to 
become arbitrary and dominated by the 
dollar. 

Altogether, the book is well worth a 
thoughtful reading. That our social agen¬ 
cies are spending their valuable time and 
energy in struggling with their financial 
needs is a problem we are increasingly 
forced to solve, and the only solution as yet 
found is this plan of community financing. 

L. F. R. 

Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson, Ph.D., 

Litt.D. The Morals of the Movie. Pp. 

251. Price, $1.25. Philadelphia: Penn 

Publishing Company, 1922. 

Doctor Oberholtzer was for six years a 
member of the Pennsylvania State Board of 
Censors, a board which was a pioneer in its 
field and whose principles and methods 
have been widely adopted. What success 
the Pennsylvania Board has had has been 
largely due to his efforts. In view of his 
intimate knowledge of the moral signifi¬ 
cance of the motion picture, it seems re¬ 
grettable that he should confine himself to 
a destructive criticism of the industry and 
devote only one or two paragraphs in his 
preface to a mere mention that it is “among 
the world’s greatest . . . successes.” 

After thus favorably cataloging the 
motion picture, he states that his purpose 
is “to point out the wrong in film,” which 


he does with a wealth of illustrative ma¬ 
terial. The censor’s point of view is well 
presented and established. The illustra¬ 
tive material is not always wisely chosen, 
but it is nevertheless valuable, as is an 
appendix of 55 pages containing examples 
of existing and proposed censorship laws 
and standards, to the outsider who wishes 
to know just what censors are attempting 
to achieve. 

Donald Young. 

Darrow, Clarence. Crime, Its Cause 
and Treatment. Pp. 302. Price, $2.50. 
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Com¬ 
pany, 1922. 

This book is what one might expect from 
a man who for years has been fighting the 
legal battles of organized labor in this 
country. It is thoughtful and filled with 
the milk of human kindness. Mr. Darrow 
makes no pretence of being an original 
investigator in criminology or of being an 
authority in biology, psychology or philoso¬ 
phy. The book is his reflections on the 
subject of crime, based on forty years of 
court practice. It is the book of a social 
philosopher. 

His point of view is fully expressed in 
his preface. “My main effort” he says 
“is to show that the laws that control 
human behavior are as fixed and certain 
as those that control the physical world.” 
Actually he does not spend much time in 
proving this; he assumes this in every 
chapter of his book. There are few, how¬ 
ever, who would quarrel with him over 
this assumption. Accordingly, he throws 
over the notion of moral responsibility and 
accounts for crime solely on the basis of 
heredity and environment Much of the 
book is devoted to an elaboration of this 
thesis interspersed with common sense 
appraisals of society's attitude toward 
various aspects of the crime problem. 

Many sentences and paragraphs could 
be taken from the book which deserve a 
place in one’s collection of useful quota¬ 
tions, as for example: 

As a matter of fact, the potential criminal is 
in every man, and no one was ever so abandoned 
that some friend would not plead for him, or 


277 


Booked EPARTMENT 


that someone who knew him would not testify 
to his good deeds. 

I have very seldom seen one who felt that he 
had done wrong, or had any thought of what 
the world calls reformation. A very few have 
used the current language of those who talk of 
reform, but generally they were the weakest and 
most hopeless of the lot and usually adopted 
this attitude to deceive. In almost every in¬ 
stance where you meet any sign of intelligence, 
excuses and explanations are freely made, and 
these explanations fully justify their points of 
view. 

But with few exceptions, the criminal comes 
from the walks of the poor and has no education 
or next to none. For this society is much to 
blame. 

Any man or woman who has fairly normal 
faculties, and can reason from cause to effect, 
knows that the crimes of children are really the 
crimes of the state and society which by neglect 
and active participation have made him what 
he is. 

Still with the unfortunate accused of crimes or 
misdemeanors, from the moment the attention 
of the officers is drawn to him until his final 
destruction, everything is done to prevent his 
recovery and to aggravate and make fatal his 
disease. 

The author’s comment on the aftermath 
of crime following the war deserves wide¬ 
spread publicity: 

For more than four years most of the Western 
World did nothing but kill. The whole world 
talked of slaughter and devoted its energy to 
killing. Every sentiment of humanity was for¬ 
gotten. Even religious ties and religious com¬ 
mands were ignored. The prayers to the 
Almighty contained requests that He help the 
various fighting nations to kill their enemies. 
Everyone was taught to hate. The leaders in 
the war knew that boys could not do efficient 
killing unless they learned to fear and hate. The 
most outrageous falsehoods were freely circu¬ 
lated by every nation about its enemies and 
their conduct of the war. The highest rewards 
were offered for new and more efficient ways to 
kill. Every school was turned over to hate and 
preparation for war, and, of course, all the 
churches joined in the universal craze. God 
would not only forgive killing but reward those 
who were the most expert at the game. 

When this bears a harvest after the war, the 
public loudly clamors for hanging boys whose 
psychology is a direct result of long and intensive 
training by the leaders of the world. 

Mr. Darrow believes, of course, that 
society has a right to protect itself from 


the depredations of criminals, but he be¬ 
lieves that this should be done not in the 
spirit of vengeance and of hate but w r ith 
charity. 

“All prisons,” says he, “should be in the 
hands of experts, physicians, criminologists, biol¬ 
ogists, and, above all, the humane. Every 
prisoner should be made to feel that the state 
is interested in his good as well as the good of 
the society from which he came.” 

The question left in the reviewer’s mind 
after reading the book is how long it will 
be before the general public comes to 
accept whole-heartedly these sound views 
of Mr. Darrow. 

Dr. Louis N. Robinson. 

Loree, Leonor Fresnel. Railroad 
Freight Transportation. Pp. 771. Price, 
$5.00. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 
1922. 

This book is not designed for the use of 
the general reader, and those who read it 
with the hope of getting a clear and logi¬ 
cally presented account of how freight is 
transported by rail will be disappointed. 
As Mr. Loree explains in his foreword, the 
volume is a “series of memoranda,” origi¬ 
nally prepared by him for the use of 
officers of his own company, “expanded 
and rearranged” for the benefit of the 
entire body of railroad officers in the United 
States. Though there is evidence that 
considerable labor was given to expansion 
and rearrangement, the work still has many 
characteristics of memoranda. With so 
much excellent material available for the 
preparation of a thoroughly good general 
work on railroad operation, it is to be 
* regretted that Mr. Loree did not give 
more effort to its organization and presen¬ 
tation. There is no business in the United 
States which comes into closer contact 
with the public than the railroad business. 
Yet to the vast majority of people the 
operation of a railroad is a complete 
mystery. There has been for a long time 
a real need for an authentic work giving 
an adequate description of modern rail¬ 
road facilities and telling how a railroad 
system is operated. Mr. Droege, in his 
two books on terminals and trains, has 
performed some service in this direction, 


278 


The Annals of the American Academy 


but his work is extremely detailed, and, 
like this work, is intended primarily for 
railroad men. Mr. Haines’s volume, Effi¬ 
cient Railroad Operation, is much too 
technical for the general reader, and it 
places much more emphasis upon efficiency 
than upon operation. 

Mr. Loree’s book is for the most part a 
running commentary upon modern rail¬ 
road practice, based upon his own experi¬ 
ence and observation. While not exactly 
autobiographical in character, it gives a 
fairly good account of the author’s long 
and useful career in the railroad field. The 
frequent references to his own experience, 
and even the Colonel Repington touches, 
such as, “When I took the Prince of Pless 
through the Western Pennsylvania coke 
region,” and when Mr. Richards said to Mr. 
McCrea, “You have a good man in Loree,” 
serve to lend interest to the discussion. 

The volume is divided into eight sections, 
labelled in order: The Permanent Way; 
Shops and Equipment; Organization, Field 
and Staff; Forms, Accounts and Statistics; 
Movement of Cars; Movement of Engines 
and Trains; Men (two sections). Mr. 
Loree has refused, however, to be hampered 
by his labels, and has exercised complete 
freedom in the distribution of his com¬ 
ments on different subjects. The engine 
house is discussed as a part of the perma¬ 
nent way and again in the section on shops 
and equipment; signals come under per¬ 
manent way and the movement of trains; 
airbrakes almost escape mention under 
equipment, but receive passing notice in 
the first section on men. The inevitable 
historical narrative on the development of 
steam transport is delayed until the middle 
of the book, appearing in the section de¬ 
voted to the movement of engines and 
trains; and a description of periodicals on 
railway transportation comes in the section 
on organization. 

One cannot say that Mr. Loree discusses 
any topic too fully or too lightly, because 
one cannot feel sure of the needs of his 
selected audience. Having prepared the 
material for the use of railroad officers, he 
naturally assumes on the part of his readers 
a fairly thorough knowledge of railroad 
work, and he has a right to be arbitrary in 
the selection of topics and in the assignment 


of space. His views on many subjects 
will doubtless be criticised. The majority 
of progressive railroad officials look with 
favor upon the use of mechanical stokers 
for large locomotives, despite Mr. Loree’s 
opinion that they do not make for greatly 
increased firing efficiency and his belief 
that firemen do not have enough work to 
do anyhow. His opposition to electrifica¬ 
tion of steam roads will likewise not meet 
with general approval; nor will his rather 
singular implication that the inefficiency of 
terminals in large cities such as New York 
and Chicago is due to the failure of public 
authorities and shippers to provide ade¬ 
quate facilities. His opinion with regard 
to store-door delivery and the use of motor 
trucks and container cars by railroad 
companies, is at direct variance with the 
view r s recently presented by Mr. Lyford 
and other railroad officials of the younger 
generation. One wishes that he had given 
his opinion of automatic stops and devices 
for train speed control, but he does not 
mention them. He apparently favors the 
use of the locomotive booster, though he 
neither describes it nor discusses its advan¬ 
tages. He tells with much detail of his 
own connection with the development of 
the standard code of train rules and tele¬ 
graph orders, but he avoids any discussion 
of the controversy over the virtual elimi¬ 
nation of the “31” order. 

If any part of Mr. Loree’s book will be 
of great interest to the general reader, it 
will be the sections devoted to labor. More 
than one hundred and fifty pages are given 
to this subject, and most of this space is 
occupied with an enlargement of his well- 
known opinion of labor organizations, their 
purposes and methods. Mr. Loree is con¬ 
vinced that the labor problem can best be 
solved by leaving all questions at issue to 
the employer. The following paragraph 
(p. 697) is faintly reminiscent of Divine 
Right Baer: 

If both parties organize to control wages and 
conditions of employment, as they become more 
nearly equal in strength, we shall enter upon a 
new phase. Practically every capitalist and 
enterpriser has had the experience of the laborer, 
knows thoroughly this phase of life in at least 
one branch of endeavor, and looks forward to 
the probability of hig great grandchildren having 


Book Department 


279 


to make their start from the same level. Prac¬ 
tically no laborer has had the experience of the 
capitalist or of the enterpriser, and he usually 
conceives a radically wrong picture of their 
activities, environment and motives. It is to 
associations of employers, therefore, not to labor 
organizations, that we may look with hope for 
practical solutions of the questions involved. 

In dealing with the activities of labor 
unions Mr. Loree occasionally lets his 
prejudices becloud his judgment, and at 
times his attitude is positively truculent. 
The Adamson Act, in particular, rouses his 
ire, every time he thinks about it; “The 
most insolent humiliation ever put on a 
proud people. The Anglo-Saxon people 
have a long memory. The day of retri¬ 
bution is not likely to be entirely avoided.” 
And of President Wilson: “A man of quick 
imagination and mercurial morals [what¬ 
ever that may mean] he lacked that sense 
of perspective without which no man is 
safe in high places. Nor did he possess 
those long traditions of Americanism, with¬ 
out which no man can adequately represent 
the republic.” One may wonder why, if 
this opinion was general, Mr. Loree, in 
common with other railroad officials, 
waited until the day after election in 1916 
to challenge the constitutionality of the 
Adamson Act in the courts. 

Mr. Loree contributes little of construc¬ 
tive nature in his discussion of the labor 
problem. He quotes at length various 
passages of open-shop propaganda, and re¬ 
hearses the familiar shibboleths of personal 
liberty, freedom of individual contract, 
and “socialistic” Russia. His attitude 
is the traditional attitude of the labor- 
union opponents, whose opposition has 
never served to check the growth of trade 
unionism or to correct its abuses. 

T. W. Van Metre. 

Jones, Franklin D., of the Washington 

Bar. Trade Association Activities and 

the Law. Pp. 360. Price, $3.00. New 

York: McGraw Hill Book Company. 

The author’s purpose is first, to aid 
officers and members of trade associations 
by informing them as to the legality of 
proposed acts and plans; second, to present 
to the public at large the vast extent of 


legitimate association activities and show 
their value and importance. The work has 
been done with such extraordinary thor¬ 
oughness and clarity that the author might 
well have stated a third purpose for his 
book; that of serving as a text for advanced 
university courses in commerce and govern¬ 
ment. 

The plan of the work is admirable. 
After opening chapters on the general 
legal rules governing competition and a 
summary of their protective purposes, the 
author takes up the chief activities of trade 
associations. These are: the dissemination 
of basic business facts; the study of cost 
and accounting methods; the establishment 
of standards, classifications, types and 
sizes, etc.; industrial research; labor ques¬ 
tions; cooperative advertising; traffic and 
transportation; the protection of credit, 
trade marks and other property interests; 
commercial arbitration; foreign trade; re¬ 
lations with government. 

The layman will be surprised to learn of 
the extent and intensity of this activity 
and the large influence wielded by some of 
the trade bodies described. The Silk Asso¬ 
ciation has developed commercial arbitra¬ 
tion to such a point that all contracts made 
by its members are accompanied by a 
blank form on which the parties state that 
they will or will not accept arbitration of 
claims arising under it. The effect is to 
take out of the courts an immense mass of 
litigation and to avoid the expense, delay 
and disruption of trade relations caused by 
such lawsuits. The same association has 
set up a complete schedule of standards in 
order to meet the need for a definite meas¬ 
ure of silk products in both quality and 
quantity. Codes of trade practices are 
solely evolved so that the trade bodies 
described are becoming the source of a 
new industrial law which, the author 
believes, may greatly aid the government 
in its regulation of fair and unfair trade 
methods. The collection and distribution 
of business information is a vital function 
of trade bodies. Its importance to the 
individual business concern is well described 
and the limits of its legality are clearly 
set forth. 

The book concludes with a study of those 
collective activities which are prohibited 


280 


The Annals of the American Academy 


by law. There are appendices giving the 
texts of the chief federal trade acts. 

It might be wished that the author had 
given a more detailed description of the 
leading association activities; also a more 
critical explanation of the reasons why 
some policies were successful and others 
were not. The reader also misses some 
constructive suggestions for the future 
development of association work. The 
first of these needs is partly supplied in a 
well-written booklet, Trade Associations , 
issued by the National Association of 
Manufacturers. Perhaps it is as yet too 
early to expect a discussion of policies, 
because most of the work undertaken is 
still new and its value and future develop¬ 
ment cannot be quickly appraised. 

The author has given a highly valuable 
survey of the present lines of activity and 


has referred the reader to helpful sources 
of information. All statements of policy 
are well documented; the references both 
to association minutes and other publi¬ 
cations, and to court decisions and adminis¬ 
trative correspondence, are thoroughly 
up-to-date. The author’s attitude is that 
of a broad-visioned student of trade and 
legal affairs who has a keen practical sense 
of the value of cooperation, and who wants 
to see association activities conducted along 
legal lines that will be helpful to their 
members and to the public at large. The 
treatment is both scholarly and interesting. 
The views expressed are sane and practical 
and the material has been gathered and 
presented in a natural order. The author 
has done a real public service in a new and 
fruitful field of research. 

James T. Young. 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 
By P. Orman Ray, Ph.D. 


American Year Book, 1912, pp. 61-03; 
Ibid., 1913, pp. 72-74; Ibid., 1914, pp. 
68-71; Ibid., 1916, p. 28. 

American Political Science Review, X, 116- 
120 (Feb. 1916), “Presidential Prima¬ 
ries.” 

Aylsworth, L. E., “Presidential Primary 
Elections—Legislation of 1910-1912,” 
Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., VI, 429-433 (Aug. 

1912). 

Barnett, J. D., “The Presidential Primary 
in Oregon,” Pol. Sci. Qnar., XXXI, 81- 
104 (1916). 

Boots, R. S., “The Presidential Primary,” 
Nat. Mun. Rev., Supplement, IX, 597- 
617 (1920). 

Bourne, Jonathan, Jr., “Federal Patronage,” 
Congressional Record, February 27, 1911. 

Davenport, F. M., “The Failure of the 
Presidential Primary,” Outlook , CXII, 
807-810 (1916). 

Dickey, F. W., “The Presidential Prefer¬ 
ence Primary,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 
IX, 467-487 (Aug. 1915). 

Hall, A. B., Popular Government (1921), 
Chap. V. 

Laprade, W. T., “Nominating Primary,” 
No. Amer. Rev., CC, 235-243 (1914). 

Literary Digest, XLIV, 579 (1912), “The 
Hunt for Delegates.” 


Merriam, C. E., The American Party 
System (1922), pp. 289-298. 

Outlook, C, 164 (1912), “The Presidential 
Primary: A Poll of the Press.” 

Ibid., C, 387 (1912), “The Presidential 
Primary.” 

Ibid., Cl, 56, 102 (1912), “Presidential 
Primaries.” 

Ibid., Cl, 287 (1912), “The Campaign as a 
School for the People.” 

Ibid., CV, 783, 792 (1913), “Presidential 
Primaries.” 

Ibid., CXXIV, 584-585 (1920), “Money 
in Political Campaigns.” 

Potts, C. S., “The Convention System and 
the Presidential Primary,” Rev. of Rev., 
XLV, 561-566 (1912). 

Pulsifer, H. T., “The Pig and the Primary,” 
Outlook, CXXVI, 19-21 (1920). 

Senate Report, No. 823, 66th Cong., 3d sess. 
(1921), pp. 2941-2944. On pre-con¬ 
vention expenditures in 1920. 

Villard, 0. G., “The ‘Unbossed’ Republi¬ 
can Convention” (1920), Nation, CX, 
820-821 (1920). 

Williams, Talcott, “Presidents, Primaries, 
and People,” Independent, CII, 358 
(1920). 

World’s Work, XXIII, 260 (1912), “Presi¬ 
dential Primaries.” 


Report of the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Po¬ 
litical and Social Science for the Year Ending December 31, 1922 


I. REVIEW OF THE ACADEMY’S 
ACTIVITIES 

\/ r OUR Board is in the fortunate position 
to present to you a most encouraging 
report on the activities of the Academy dur¬ 
ing the calendar year which has just come 
to a close. At no time in the history of our 
organization have the publications of the 
Academy exerted so far-reaching an influ¬ 
ence on the thought and opinion of the 
country. 

With each year the Academy is moving 
steadily towards the fulfillment of its 
larger mission as one of the real forces in 
the education of public opinion. The meet¬ 
ings of the Academy have been largely at¬ 
tended, and the sessions of the Annual 
Meeting attracted attention throughout the 
country. 

The progress of the Academy’s work and 
the extension of its influence has been due 
in large measure to the devoted and unself¬ 
ish efforts of the Editorial Council under 
the able leadership of the Chairman of the 
Council—Dr. Clyde L. King—and the 
Board desires to take this opportunity to 
place on record the debt of obligation owing 
to Dr. King and his associates. 

During the year the Academy has suf¬ 
fered the loss of one of its founders—Dr. 
Simon N. Patten, to whose guidance the 
Academy owes so much. A special memo¬ 
rial session was held under the auspices of 
the Academy to honor his memory. 

Your Board has quietly continued the 
campaign for the establishment of an en¬ 
dowment fund. It is our purpose to raise 
such a fund through comparatively small 
contributions by the members of the Acad¬ 
emy. While this campaign is still in its 
initial stages, it is our hope that in time 
such a fund will be established in order to 
enable the Academy to carry on special in¬ 
vestigations on subjects of national and 
international interest. 


II. PUBLICATIONS 

During the year 1922 the Academy pub¬ 
lished the following special volumes: 

The Federal Reserve System—its pur¬ 
pose and work (January). 

Russia Today—Determination of Wage- 
Rates—American Intervention in Haiti and 
the Dominican Republic (March). 

The Ethics of the Professions and of 
Business (May). 

America and the Rehabilitation of 
Europe (July). 

Industrial Relations and the Churches 
(September). 

A Study in Labor Mobility (September 
supplement). 

Western Europe and the United States 
(November). 

Attendance in Four Textile Mills in Phil¬ 
adelphia (November Supplement). 

III. MEETINGS 

During the year that has just come to a 
close the Academy held the following ses¬ 
sions : 

January 1J(., China and Her Problems. 

May 12 and 13 , The Twenty-sixth An¬ 
nual Meeting—America and the Rehabili¬ 
tation of Europe. 

October 28, Special session to honor the 
memory of Dr. Simon Nelson Patten, one of 
the founders of the Academy. 

IV. MEMBERSHIP 

During the year 1922 the Academy re¬ 
ceived 1,318 new members and 172 new 
subscriptions, or a total of 1,490. The 
Academy lost 68 members by death; 545 by 
resignation; and 192 delinquent members 
and 95 subscriptions were dropped. The 
present membership of the Academy is 
6,979 members and 1,436 subscriptions, 
making a total of 8,415. 


281 


282 


The Annals of the American Academy 


V. FINANCIAL CONDITION 

The receipts and expenditures of the 
Academy for the fiscal year just ended are 
clearly set forth in the treasurer’s report. 
The accounts were submitted to Messrs. 
E. P. Moxey and Company for audit, and 
copy of their statement is appended here¬ 
with. In order to lighten the expenses in¬ 
cident to the Annual Meeting a fund of 
$1,734 was raised. The Board desires to 
take this opportunity to express its grati¬ 
tude to the contributors to this fund. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

One of the purposes which your Board 
has constantly kept in mind is the estab¬ 
lishment of Academy centers throughout 
the country. We have not been able to put 
this larger plan into effect because of the 
fact that it will require not only a much 
more elaborate administrative organization 
than we at present possess, but will also 
call for the services of an executive director 
whose entire time and energy will be de¬ 
voted to this special duty. As yet your 
Board has not been able to find a man ade¬ 
quately equipped to undertake this im¬ 
portant task. 

In conclusion your Board desires to ex¬ 
press the hope that during the present year 
the Academy may have the more active co¬ 
operation of a larger percentage of our 
members. Occupying, as they do, influen¬ 
tial positions in all sections of the country, 
such cooperation will add much to the in¬ 
fluence and prestige of the Academy. 


January 11,1923. 

Charles J. Rhoads, Esq., Treas., 

American Academy of Political and Social 
Science , Philadelphia , Pa. 

Dear Sir :— 

We herewith report that we have audited 
the books and accounts of the American 
Academy of Political and Social Science for 
its fiscal year ended December 31, 1922. 

We have prepared and submit herewith 
statement of receipts and disbursements 
during the above indicated period, together 
with statement of assets as at December 31, 
1922. 

The receipts from all sources were veri¬ 
fied by a comparison of the entries for same 
appearing in the treasurer’s cash book with 
the record of bank deposits and were found 
to be in accord therewith. 

The. disbursements, as showm by the cash 
book, were supported by proper vouchers. 
These vouchers were in the form of can¬ 
celled paid checks or receipts for moneys 
expended. These were examined by us and 
verified the correctness of the payments 
made. 

The investment securities listed in the 
statement of assets w r ere examined by us 
and were found to be correct and in accord 
with the books. 

As the result of our audit and examina¬ 
tion we certify that the statements sub¬ 
mitted herew ith are true and correct. 

Yours respectfully, 

(Signed) Edward P. Moxey & Co., 
Certified Public Accountants■ 


Report of the Directors 


283 


AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 

Statement of Receipts and Disbursements for Fiscal Year 

Ended December 31, 1922 


Cash Balance January 1, 1922.. $1,693.07 

Receipts 

Members’ Dues. $33,841.99 

Life Memberships. 22.50 

Special Donations. 1,734.00 

Subscriptions.*. 7,201.21 

Sales of Publications. 7,597.10 

Securities Sold or Matured. 6,971.80 

Interest on Investments and Bank Balances. 5,749.63 

Gain on Sale or Maturity of Securities. 71.64 

Sundries. 30.85 

- 63,220.72 


$64,913.79 

$6,215.28 

4,294.02 

7.722.80 
26,954.59 

2,759.31 

1,749.00 

6.743.80 

- 56,438.80 


Cash Balance December 31, 1922. $8,474.99 

Assets 

Investments (Book Value). 

Cash: 

In Academy Office. 

In Treasurer’s Hands, Girard Trust Company 

- 8,474.99 


. $117,148.27 

$400.00 

8,074.99 


Disbursements 

Office Expense. 

Philadelphia Meetings. 

Publicity Expense. 

Publication of The Annals. 

Membership Records. 

Expenditures for Special Research Work. 

Securities Purchased. 


$125,623.26 





























Index 


Ability, 20. 

Accuracy, 72. 

Advance, 106. 

Advertising, 43; self, 92. 

Amendments, 22, 68. 

Alphabetical arrangement, 152. 

America, 35, 94; change of attitude in, 36. 
Antagonism, 47. 

Appraisal, 142. 

Assurance, 176. 

Ballot: judicial, 86; non-partisan: 7, 84; radi¬ 
calism of, 85; results of, 87, 95; short ballot 7, 
14,19. 

Berdahl, Clarence A. Operation of the 
Richards Primary, The, 158-171. 

Berger, Victor M., 51. 

Bi-factionalism, 114. 

Board of Directors, Report of, 281-283. 

Bonus, soldiers. 111. 

Boots, Ralph S. Party Platforms in State 
Politics, 72-82. 

Bribery, 1. 

Breakdown, 143. 

Brookhart, Col. Smith W., 78,149. 

Calder, Senator, 143. 

California Direct Primary, The. West, 
Victor J., 116-127. 

California, 37. 

Campaign funds, 3. 

Candidates, 122; character of, 152; independent, 
14; non-partisan, 14. 

Central America, 42. 

Centralization, 80. 

Cleveland, 32. 

Clique, 97. 

Compromise, 53. 

Committees, 16; state, 99. 

Compromise, 97, 52. 

Competition, 149, 107. 

Confusion, 94. 

Conservatism, 85. 

Consolidation, 19. 

Control, 176. 

Conventions: 101, 113; endorsement of, 15; 
evils of, 1, 2; post-primary, 99; proposal, 
160; remoteness of, 1; state, 179, 74, 46. 
County government, 20. 

Cox, Gov., 19. 

Crill, Mr. Louis N., 158. 

Criticism, 23, 126. 

Cross examination, 26. 

Cushman, Robert Eugene. Non-partisan 
Nominations and Elections, 83-96. 


Daly, Alice Lorraine, 159. 

Data, 93. 

Davies Bill, 128. 

Davies, Howard, 128. 

Debates, 166, 167, 168. 

Defects in the Direct Primary. Geiser, 
Karl F., 31-39. 

Defects, 66, 180. 

Deliberation, 27. 

Demagoguery, 43. 

Democracy, 39, 42. 

Despotism, 24. 

Devine, James H., 106. 

Difficulties, 35. 

Dignity, 89. 

Digest of Primary Election Laws. Kettle- 
borough, Charles, 181-273. 

Direct Primary, 108; abolishment of, 28, 116; 
advantages of, 6, 142; city versus county, 131; 
criticism of, 116; democratic endorsement of, 
55; disadvantages of, 142; disappointment in 
operation, 5; effect of, 45, 46, 77; essentials of 
Maine, 130; impracticability of, 56; necessity 
for, 70; opposition to, 116; repeal of, 29; 
retention of, 23; small size of vote in, 144, 157; 
voting differences, 3. 

Direct Primaries. Kettleborough, Charles, 
11-17. 

Direct Primary and Party Responsibility 
in Wisconsin, The. Hall, Arnold Bennett, 
40-54. 

Direct Primary Law in Maine and How It 
Has Worked, The. Hormell, Orren Chal- 
mer, 128-141. 

Dissatisfaction, 10. 

Discard, 80. 

Dix law, 142. 

Dixon, Governor, 19. 

Dodds, H. W. Removable Obstacles to the 
Success of the Direct Primary, 18-21. 

Drafts, 76. 

Education, 180. 

Efficiency, 83. 

Egan, George W., 159. 

Election, 41, 175. 

Endorsement, 99. 

England, 94: allegiance to leader in, 36; free 
trade movement, 36; party spirit in, 35, 36; 
return to two-party system, 35. 

Esch-Cummins Railroad Law, 149. 

Essentials, 36. 

Europe, 115. 

Evidence, 40, 46. 

Evil, 24. 


284 


Index 


285 


Expense; 2, 25, 26, 67, 112, 121, 123, 124, 139, 
146, 152, 156, 170, 171, 176. 

Experimentation, 8, 9. 

Extra-legal, 114. 

Factionalism, 53. 

Failure, 163, 180. 

Farce, 143. 

Fee, 117. 

Freedom, 106. 

Geiser, Karl F. Defects in the Direct Pri¬ 
mary, 31-39. 

Genius, 50. 

Geography, 173. 

Group organization, necessity of, 41. 

Guild, Frederic H. Operation of the Direct 
Primary in Indiana, The, 172-180. 

Hall, Arnold Bennett. Direct Primary and 
Party Responsibility in Wisconsin, The, 
40-54. 

Hannan, William E. Opinions of Public Men 
on the Value of the Direct Primary, 55-62. 

Hare system, 105, 113. 

Hoag, C. G. Proportional Representation in 
the United States. Its Spread, Principles of 
Operation, Relation to Direct Primaries and 
General Results, 105-110. 

Horace, Frank E. Workings of the Direct 
Primary in Iowa, The, 148-157. 

Hormell, Orren Chalmer. Direct Primary 
Law in Maine and How It Has Worked, 
128-141. 

Hughes, Governor, 2, 162. 

Hughes, Secretary, 6. 

Ideals, 44. 

Independent voter, 23. 

Individual, 95. 

Ineligibility, 120. 

Informal gathering, 100. 

Intelligence, 93, 151. 

Irish, 42, 54. 

Irregularity of party voting, 153. 

Issues, 164. 

Kettleborough, Charles. Direct Primaries, 
11-17. Digest of Primary Election Laws, 
181-273 

Klu Klux Klan, 115. 

LaFollette, Senator, 52, landslide, 47; popu¬ 
larity of, 50. 

Leader, 162; leadership, 70, 94. 

League of Women Voters, 140. 

Limitations, 43. 

Liquor, 38, 90. 

Lists, 155. 


Lowden, Governor, 163. 

Lowell, President, 43. 

Machine control, 122. 

Maine Federation of Women’s Clubs, 140. 
Majority, 28, 161. 

Manager plan, 106. 

McMaster, Governor, 159. 

Merits, 128. 

Merriam, Charles S. Nominating Systems, 
1 - 10 . 

Minority, 161; organizations, 41. 

Mistakes, 64. 

Modification, 31, 112. 

Myth, 179. 

National conference, 8. 

Newspapers, 24, 125, 126; ownership, 126. 
Nominating Systems. Merriam, Charles S., 
1 - 10 . 

Nomination, 41, 125; pre-primary, 98. 
Non-partisan League, 91. 

Non-Partisan Nomination and Elections. 

Cushman, Robert Eugene, 83-96. 
Non-partisanship, 83. 

Norris, George W. Why I believe in the 
Direct Primary, 22-30. 

Oberlin, 33. 

Ohio, 33. 

Old Guard, 9. 

Operation of the Direct Primary in Indi¬ 
ana, The. Guild, Frederic H., 172-180. 
Operation of the Richards Primary, The. 

Berdahl, Clarence A., 158-171. 

Operation of the State-Wide Direct Pri¬ 
mary in New York State, The. Overacker, 
Louise, 142-147. 

Opinions: of editors, 56, 58, 60, 61; of governors, 
55, 57, 59, 61; of political chairmen, 56, 58, 

59, 61; of professors of political science, 57, 59, 

60, 61; group, 41; public: 43, 49; constituent 
elements of, 43. 

Opinions of Public Men on the Value of 
the Direct Primary. Hannan, William E., 
55-62. 

Opposition, 31, 155, 180. 

Optional, 65. 

Overacker, Louise. The Operation of the 
State-Wide Direct Primary in New York 
State, 142-147. 

Pamphlets, 16. 

Party Platforms in State Politics. Boots, 
Ralph S., 72-82. 

Party: adherence to, 34; allegiance, 159; cohe¬ 
sion, 33; control, 178; committees (Richards 
Primary) 160; conference, 8; disappearance of 
organization, 50; disregard of allegiance, 35; 
dissolution of, 34; dominant, 50, 174; effect 


286 


The Annals of the American Academy 


on organization, 33; failure of system, 34; 
government, 42; labels, 88; leadership, 5; 
membership (Richards Primary) 158; organi¬ 
zation, 50, 177; progressive, 2; two-party 
system, 41; responsibility, 23, 33, 43. 

Patriotism, 24. 

People, 22. 

Pennell Bill, 128. 

Prerogative of political scientist, 40. 

Personal campaigning, 89. 

Personality, 92. 

Personalities, 48. 

Philipp, Emanuel L., 49, 52. 

Platforms: improvements in, 81; insignificance 
of, 79; opposition to, 79; recommendations 
for, 82; party: 76; differences in, 80. 

Plurality nominations, 111. 

Political affiliation, 126; campaigns, 42; harmony, 
42; machinery, 41; sanitation, 83. 

Precinct caucuses, 81. 

Pre-arrangement, 97. 

Pre-Primary Conventions. Wallace, Schuyler 
C., 97-104. 

Precincts, 177, 178. 

Presidential election day, 64; ignorance, 63; in¬ 
difference in nomination, 63; methods, 63. 

Prevention of Minority Nominations for 
State Offices in the Direct Primary. 
Williams, Benj. H., 111-115. 

Primaries: mandatory, 11; optional, 11; primary 
caucus, 12; dates, 12; repeal bills, 18; open, 
16, 51; Richards: civil service board, 168; 
elective, 160; independent candidates, 162; 
novel features of, 158; official party endorse¬ 
ments, 168; unit representation, 160: second, 
111; system, 8; principles, 163; problems, 63. 

Procedure, 118. 

Proportional Representation in the United 
States. Its Spread, Principles of Opera¬ 
tion, Relation to Direct Primaries and 
General Results. Hoag, C. G., 105-110. 

Protest, 72. 

Public issues, 44. 

Publicity, 26, 165: pamphlets, 166; record books, 
165. 

Questions, 55. 

Questionnaire, 104. 

Qualifications, 118. 

Ray, P. Orman. Reform of Presidential Nomi¬ 
nating Methods, 63-71. 

Recall, 22, 169. 

Reform of Presidential Nominating Meth¬ 
ods. Ray, P. Orman, 63-71. 

Reform, 18, 68. 

Remick, Mr. P. C., 109. 

Removable Obstacles to the Success of the 
Direct Primary. Dodds, H. W. t 18-21. 


Reorganization, 8. 

Repeal, 156. 

Report of Board of Directors, 281-283. 

Results, 65. 

Responsibility: factional 48, 49; organized, 48; 

party, 49. 

“Rings,” 20. 

Rural Counties, 144. 

Saratoga, 101. 

Sentiment, general, 55. 

Sherman, Lawrence Y., 103. 

Shank, Mayor, 178. 

Shortcomings, 23. 

Signatures, 118. 

Skepticism, 31. 

Slate, 102. 

Social welfare legislation, 139. 

Spokesmen, 109. 

Stability, 43. 

Staples, L. M., 128. 

Stimulation of national politics, 151. 

Suffrage, 22. 

Sweet, William C., 99. 

Time of election, 66, 117, 156. 

Traditions, 36. 

Unconstitutionality, 67. 

United States Senate, 26. 

Unit representation, 161. 

Unity, 71. 

Variation, 102. 

Villages, 12. 

Vote: county unit, 16, 112; majority, 137; modi¬ 
fications in, 113; preferential: 117; advantage 
of, 112. 

Waite, Colonel Henry M., 110. 

Wallace, Schuyler C. Pre-Primary Con¬ 
ventions, 97-104. 

War, 2, 34, 67, 140. 

Washington, George, 24. 

Weapon, 143. 

Webb, U. S., 119. 

West, Victor J. California Direct Primary, 
The, 116-127. 

Why I Believe in the Direct Primary. Nor¬ 
ris, George W., 22-30. 

Williams, Benj. H. Prevention of Minority 
Nominations for State Offices in the Direct 
Primary, 111-115. 

Wilson, President, 65, 163. 

Women: enfranchisement of, 144; voters, 151, 
156, 173. 

Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa, 
The. Horack, Frank E., 148-157. 


H 10.3 79 .<4 


SOME COMMENTS IN 
REGARD TO “THE ANNALS” 


“I desire to express my sincere appreciation of what comes to me through 
the Academy. There is no expenditure of a like sum which is anywhere 
so worthwhile.” 

SEWARD A. SIMONS, 

Los Angeles, California 

“I can conceive of no more practical method for keeping in touch with 
the great vital issues of the day than by a careful study of your highly 
authoritative volumes.” 

HESTER E. HOSFORD, 

Seattle, Washington 

“I know of no publication which furnishes me with as much definite 

and accurate information on the problems of the day as does that 

published by the Academy of Political and Social Science.” 

SAM D. GOZA, 

The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, 
/Helena, Montana 

“I wish to congratulate you on the excellence of the volumes for the 
past year. The one thing that is particularly commendable is the up-to- 
dateness of the information that you publish. Further than that one gets 

views from all sides of the different subjects, leaving him quite free and 

unbiased in the formation of his own opinions.” 

N. L. SOMERS, 

Toronto, Ontario 



The American Academy 

OF 

Political and Social Science 

Philadelphia 


President :;>! 

L, S. ROWE, PhJD., Director-General, Pan-American Union 

Washington, D. C. 


CARL KELSEY, Ph.D. 
University of Pennsylvania 


Vice-Presiden ts 


HON. HERBERT HOOVER 
Secretary of Commerce 


DAVID P. BARROWS, Ph.D. 
University of California 


Secretary 

J. P. LICHTENBERGER, PhJ). 
University of Pennsylvania 


Treasurer 

CHARLES J. RHOADS, Esq. 
Brown Brothers and Company, Philadelphia 


General Advisory committee 


DR. RAFAEL ALTAMERA 
Madrid, Spain 

EDUARDO JIMENEZ DE ARECHAGA 
Montevideo, Uruguay 

RT.HON. ARTHUR J. BALFOUR, M J>. 
London, England 

DR. M. J. BONN 
Berlin, Germany 

PROF. EDWIN CANNAN, LL. D. 
Oxford, England 

PROF. L. DUPRIEZ 

University of Louvainv: / 

PROF. CARLO F. FERRARIS 
Royal University, Padua, Italy 

EDMUND J. JAMES, PhT>., LLJD.. 
University of Illinois 

PROF. RAPHAEL GEORGES LEVY 
Paris, France 


PROF. L. OPPENHEIM 

University of Cambridge, England 

PROF. A. C. PIGOU 

University of Cambridge, England 

ADOLFO G. POSADA 
Madrid, Spain 

DR. WM. E. RAPPARD 
Geneva, Switzerland 

GUILLERMO SUBERCASEAUX 
Santiago, Chile 

SR. DR. MANUEL VTLLARAN 
Lima, Peru 

HARTLEY WITHERS 
" ^ London, England ;V 

SR. DR. ESTANISLAO S. ZEBALLOS 
Buenos Aires, Argentina 

G. F. PEARCE 

Melbourne, Australia 

















• A'?. o 




* < 0 ^ v Vo» o 1 

* *y & • 



c\ AT *«••* ^ v % s * • • % c\ <9 A\f- *> V *»•-•' 

^ A -M*. ** *« *jd^' ^ A .W£ ** *♦ .* 

j'v 'Mm/M\ ■<"V rJISsk- '{' Y ’j SgM i. vv • 


• o>^. 


Off. 



• A'Va o 


’-A 0 ^ • *• ' * * 0 0 " 0 * 

\ *V G *w^>\ ° <r> * 

^ Cr . v 


<\ *'T.« S 46 



* <$? ' S &\ o M 

\cA %, ■'«•• 

C 0 Aw^v °o 



, *•*’• ^ ° 
4 V s • • > 



% <& * 
vv 


lS • 




^ V 


•'’* A 



,* . . . 


< v 0 " 0 

% * “ '* < 0 ’ f 

V^J. A “!> ► 

* ^ r C^ ♦-f 

«?>•’>, wmw 4 *'*** J -^^.° A% •!§,• > v *V V 

^ ^ «v 'O* • <fyy vr * 'o- ^ 

^ G o * A <(r *0 'o.t* A ^ .-.< 

•*•'*<» O A f, 0 u 0 » rA a 1 '*- 4 ^- ,o "« 4 





o c, vP 

V o h/jisl W' * av *y\ . ^7«fr2- * A Vk^ 

'° # ‘'* xO’ <a ww jr V 'o'.'.* ^ 

■* ^ 0 0 " 0 *^ 0^ t . *• 1 • * C 0 " ® ♦ ^ 




c 11 o 


^ & 

%> A° 

^ ^ *mA°c a v * 




0 

■k Cp 1 - 0 - o ^ 

■* Vi» ♦ 




4 c> 

v ■a?' ^ 

1 ♦ 

e , 1 ^V- « N V A'-’ 

> v % .’V‘% V. a 0 ^ . > • 

• *' ■" ‘^'* w ■ * • 

- ^ xW - /yj7 




A \" ^ y • . 6 

A 0 0 “ 0 4 <^S 

* A^vVv ^ 'T c 

<" v <: S^AYtY'^^ " 7 , ^ + 

* 0^ 




> V s O. ,- 

^ A ». 



V * V 


o . » 



V 5 V 


!. 0 v 


y-V 


A A °*yMw** A A v^ip , *“ A A a 

A '••»*\< v <■ *yy’ a A ■'?.?• * a 

.•i’;. V a Vf> A .-‘^ o, A 

*• \U//X^> yy. 4 y 

o V 



N A* vtv « 

^ * ^ca/*\* A o A 

• - 0 ' ^ V k *<’* y °w *• -• 0 ^0 

♦ -a AV A V % cv ,f 

^ A^ A 


vf» <j‘ 








° « 
r * -0-P 0 

•y* ' • • * ^ «G £> 

*#> ,o* ,.■•*/. -*b V 

Ax- C * afP7?7p -> o S°" • „ * 'r 

: -fa v* ; 

, n> -wss>° *° ■%. ’“zm*' a 

' * <1 I s O ^ • r\ ±bC/Jf‘& * k v 

V^ ,*v., ^ " 0 *°.. ^ "' ^ 


'O. 'o • k - 



^o< 


A<b 


•» ^ 




H° a 



. 0 ^ t * L ' * * o 

•w :£m^- -ox? x 

: . 0 ^, .«*» 

- —v* ^ x v <?* «. 

O ^ o * 

\v v*. ° * 0 

V . »LV 1 % c\ ,<y * y • - ^ 

Tx x“& *• 

* *-/ 

r * 

* A V ^ - ' 

* AV *>\. • 

- x * ^ ^ 

.A <V '•• •‘ . 0 - 

<r 'V c.° ** 

*i.A 





s/Hl*& s 

/Jr^T ♦ 


/ n • y 

- "'b 

\ 

aTo ^ 







/ /!\lX& s 
/ j h <&5 > 


# 1 ♦ 4 

- *b 

v< 

%% ^ 



A? 

A *P .•’* 

. • aV c^ ♦ 

c,^ ° - .'c = 3 ii 1 11,111^^ - ^ - 

** .v ^ *** % 

e '*"•** <6 o y . * - /V <" **..«* G^ ^b *'0.7'* *\ 





f v %. 4 '" , ‘* <* 

>\° * 1 *°' > v % **•-•*- 

\r > ^ Jb • a y v, 





V 

^ °y/Wp ? % a’ ^ 

* * .A <V ' *“* 5 * < 0 ^ ' 0 . 7 - 

'♦ O _ A^ 0 0 W * -» ^ 0 ^ • 1 ' * 4 ^o 



/T /< 

^O ° ^ 

<0 v, *■ 

'V"<V‘ 

. <^ v 3 ^ 

• % / .'«. % 



-o ^ S 


,G o 0 M ® . '<£> 


>:* ^ > 


a v 

<0 +'*°' > 

* ?j®££\ U.*+ : 
































































































































































































































